IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3769 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.576/2006 of THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS(ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT II, PATHANAMTHITTA. .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------------- RAFEEK, MELEVEETTIL, KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKARA MURI, CHITTAR, SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3769 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, who faces indictment in a prosecution under the Kerala Abkari Act; who had earlier entered appearance and was enlarged on bail; who later was not able to appear before the learned Magistrate against whom coercive processes have been issued by the learned Magistrate including steps under Sections 82 and 85 and who apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes, has come before this Court now with the prayer that there may be a specific direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the learned Magistrate to consider his application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously, on the date of surrender itself and in the light of the decisions in Alice George Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003 (1) KLT 339] and Sukumary V. State of Kerala [2001(1) KLT 22]. 2. I am not satisfied that any special or specific directions deserve to be issued. Every court must comply with the directions in Alice George and Sukumary (supra) and it is not necessary for this Court in every subsequent petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C Crl.M.C : 3769/2008 -:2:- to issue directions to the Subordinate Magistracy to comply with the decisions in the earlier binding precedents. Every court must do the same. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate shall not do the same. If there is non compliance, avenues of challenge/complaint shall certainly be open to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has a further contention that the petitioner is entitled for discharge. The learned counsel submits that it may be observed that the petitioner has the right of claiming discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C before the learned Sessions Judge. That option of the petitioner shall certainly remain and his plea for discharge will have to be considered by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. With the above observation, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. 4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C : 3769/2008 -:3:- Crl.M.C : 3769/2008 -:4:-