IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2983 of 2008()
1. YESU, POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.K.KARNIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2983 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for
offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.326 and 308 read
with Sec.34 IPC. Investigation is complete. Cognizance has
already been taken. Committal proceedings has been
registered. The petitioner was not arrested in the course of
investigation. He has not appeared before the learned
Magistrate so far. The petitioner has received summons from
the court, it is submitted. The petitioner is willing to appear
before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But the
petitioner apprehends that the offence being the one triable
exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate may
not consider the petitioner’s application for regular bail on
merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He therefore
Crl.M.C. No. 2983 of 2008 -: 2 :-
prays that appropriate directions may be issued under Sec.482
Cr.P.C.
2. I find the apprehension of the petitioner to be totally
unjustified. The learned Magistrate, it appears, has already
exercised the discretion under Sec.204 Cr.P.C. to issue only a
summons and not a warrant. I must assume that this discretion
has been exercised by the learned Magistrate advisedly and after
reference to all the circumstances. It would be harsh and
insensitive for any court to issue summons to a person to appear
before it and thereafter remand him into custody even when he
is willing to offer bail. Sufficient general directions have already
been issued in the decisions reported in Alice George v.
Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339) as also
Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). I have no
reason to assume that the learned Magistrate is not aware of the
law and would not follow the law. In these circumstances, I am
satisfied that no further, specific or special directions need be
issued in this case.
3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to
observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned
Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to
the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
Crl.M.C. No. 2983 of 2008 -: 3 :-
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Such application
must be considered in the light of the fact that the discretion has
already been exercised to issue a summons and not a warrant as
also in the light of the two binding precedents referred above.
4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge