IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2983 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.146/08 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION. C.P. NO.64/08 OF THE JFMC, DEVIKULAM. PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------ YESU, POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNAR POLICE STATION. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2983 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.326 and 308 read with Sec.34 IPC. Investigation is complete. Cognizance has already been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner was not arrested in the course of investigation. He has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. The petitioner has received summons from the court, it is submitted. The petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But the petitioner apprehends that the offence being the one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate may not consider the petitioner's application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He therefore Crl.M.C. No. 2983 of 2008 -: 2 :- prays that appropriate directions may be issued under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 2. I find the apprehension of the petitioner to be totally unjustified. The learned Magistrate, it appears, has already exercised the discretion under Sec.204 Cr.P.C. to issue only a summons and not a warrant. I must assume that this discretion has been exercised by the learned Magistrate advisedly and after reference to all the circumstances. It would be harsh and insensitive for any court to issue summons to a person to appear before it and thereafter remand him into custody even when he is willing to offer bail. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in the decisions reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339) as also Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate is not aware of the law and would not follow the law. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that no further, specific or special directions need be issued in this case. 3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate Crl.M.C. No. 2983 of 2008 -: 3 :- must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Such application must be considered in the light of the fact that the discretion has already been exercised to issue a summons and not a warrant as also in the light of the two binding precedents referred above. 4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge