IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4738 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.853/2008 OF KASARAGODE POLICE STATION PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED(S): --------------- GERMAN SHERIFF, THEKKI PO, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINAT & STATE: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KASARAGODE POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4738 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The matter is at the crime stage. Investigation is pending. The petitioner came to this court complaining that they do not deserve arrest and prayed for issue of directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Directions were issued that if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and then applies for bail, his application for regular bail must be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously as per the dictum in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. The petitioner accordingly surrendered before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, on his surrender, remanded him to custody and disposed of his bail application. The bail application was rejected. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the rejection of the application for regular bail. Crl.M.C.No.4738/08 2 2. It is definitely for the petitioner to seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C before the learned Sessions Judge or this court. I am unable to agree that this court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or should grant bail to the petitioner. It is true that, as per Annexure II order, the expeditious consideration of the bail application was directed. But it did not at all amount to a direction to grant bail. The discretion of the learned Magistrate to grant bail or not to grant bail will not in any way br taken away by Annexure II order. I am satisfied that Annexure III order does not, at any rate, warrant invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. This petition is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C before the appropriate court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4738/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4738/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008