IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4491 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.758/08 PF ADOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 --------------- 1. SHAHUL HAMEED, PARAYIL VEETIL, PARUTHIPPARA, ADOOR. 2. ANEESH, PARAYIL VEETIL, PARUTHIPPARA, ADOOR. 3. RASHID, PARAYIL VEETIL, PARUTHIPPARA, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4491 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). All other offences alleged against the petitioners are bailable offences. But the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is non bailable. 2. In view of Section 18 of the Act, the petitioners are not able to seek anticipatory bail. They now have to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. They are willing to do the same. They apprehend that their application for bail to be filed after such appearance may not be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. It is hence prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C deserves to be issued. This Court has time and again directed that application Crl.M.C. No.4491 of 2008 2 for bail filed by a person surrendered before the Magistrates must be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The decision in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339] gives specific direction on this aspect. 4. The apprehension that the application for regular bail to be filed by the petitioners may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits as the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session does not also appear to be justified. This Court has time and again repeated that the mere fact that an offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Session will not justify abdication of powers by the learned Magistrates under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate is bound to consider the application for bail on merits and pass appropriate orders. This position has been made crystal clear in the following decisions. i) Ali v. State of Kerala [2000(2) KLT 280], ii) Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 452], iii) Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.)42] and iv) P.P.Kader v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.) 250]. Crl.M.C. No.4491 of 2008 3 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The learned Magistrate shall consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioners when they surrender before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself, provided sufficient prior notice is given to the Prosecutor in charge of the case of such bail application to be filed, in the light of the 5 precedents referred above. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-