IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4060 of 2008() -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.133/2008 OF THE AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNHIKRISHNAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, CHALINGAL HOUSE, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. AZEEZ,S/O. FATHIMA, ENNAPPARA, CHALINGAL, HOSDURG TALUK. 3. RATHEESH THANNOTH, KUNNUMANGANAM,HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED 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 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4060 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All other offences are bailable offences, it is submitted. The offence under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act is not bailable. According to the petitioners the allegations are totally bereft of any substance or bonafides. The petitioners cannot seek anticipatory bail in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In these circumstances the petitioners have rushed to this Court with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioners on their surrender before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. 2. Sufficient general directions have already been issued impressing upon the subordinate courts the need to dispose of Crl.M.C.No. 4060 of 2008 2 applications for bail expeditiously in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not follow the dictum therein. 3. Similarly the apprehension that merely because the offence is triable by a court of sessions, the learned Magistrate may not consider the application on merits is also not justified in view of the decisions of this Court in Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) KLT 280), Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452), Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 42) and P.P. Kader v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 250). I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the applications to be filed by them on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. The learned Magistrate must consider the application for regular bail to be filed by the petitioners on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously on the date of surrender itself, in the light of the precedents referred above. Crl.M.C.No. 4060 of 2008 3 4. With the above observations this Crl.M.C. Is dismissed. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm