IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4533 of 2008() ------------------------- Cr.NO.59/2006 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------- RAMESH SHETTY, S/O.LATE NARAYANA SHETTY, KAJODI HOUSE, KADAMBAR VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR (VIA), KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION. 2. 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 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4533 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. He was never arrested by the Investigator though the alleged offence was committed as early as on 16.2.2006. The petitioner now apprehends that he may be arrested by the police. He has therefore come to this court with this petition. 2. According to him he is absolutely innocent. The proceedings initiated against him are totally unjustified. The petitioner apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He has therefore come to this court seeking directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The petition is one against an investigation in progress. If he feels that the proceedings initiated against him is not justified and that he does not deserve to be arrested, he can seek anticipatory bail from appropriate court. In the alternative, he Crl.M.C.No. 4533 of 2008 2 can choose to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. It appears from this petition that the petitioner is opting to adopt the latter course. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339) to the effect that a court considering application for regular bail of a person who has surrendered before it must do the same expeditiously. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not discharge this duty in law. The learned Magistrate must consider the application for bail of the petitioner if he surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case. No special or specific directions need be issued. I expect the learned Magistrate to comply with the directions issued in the decision referred above. 4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm