IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4374 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN LP 201/06 IN CP.350/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA C.R.44/02 OF KOTTARAKKARA EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 2 --------------- SUBRAHMANYAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN THEKKEVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MUKKANDAM MURI EZHUKONE VILLGE KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4374 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act. It is submitted that he was enlarged on bail at the crime stage. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate. According to him he is absolutely innocent. His earlier absence was due to reasons beyond his control. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate. But the petitioner, who apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously, has come to this Court with this petition praying for issue of directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the learned Magistrate to comply with the dictum in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339] and Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22] and to consider his application for bail to be filed by him when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Crl.M.C. No.4374 of 2008 2 2. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. I am not satisfied that it is necessary for this Court in every subsequent case to issue directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]. Every court must do the same. I have no reason to assume that the same shall not be done. If there be non compliance, the avenues of challenge/complaint are available for the petitioner. 3. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the above specific observations. 4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the court below. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-