IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4810 of 2008() ------------------------- CR. NO. 279/2008 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 5 --------------------------------- 1. T.C.MUSTHAFA @ DADA MUSTHAFA, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 45 YEARS, THEKKUMPATH HOUSE, IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.C.SHAFEEQUE, S/O T.C.MUSTHAFA, AGED 20 YEARS, THEKKUMPATH HOUSE, IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. T.C.SHAMEER @ SAMEER, S/O.T.C.MUSTHAFA, AGED 19 YEARS, THEKKUMPATH HOUSE, IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. T.C.SHAFEER, S/O T.C.MUSTHAFA, AGED 22 YEARS, THEKKUMPATH HOUSE, IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SHAKKEEB, S/O HASHIM, AGED 20 YEARS, SIDDIQUE NAGAR, IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DT.REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4810 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 324 and 308 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 1.9.2008. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. 2. The petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail and the same has been dismissed by the bail Bench of this Court. The petitioners have not challenged that order. They have now come to this Court with a request that directions may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. What is the direction that the petitioners seek? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners shall be satisfied if there is a specific direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the bail application on the date of surrender itself. 4. I am afraid that there has been no need for issue of any special or specific direction. Sufficient general directions have Crl.M.C.No. 4810 of 2008 2 already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). The petitioner, whose application for anticipatory bail has been rejected and the crime against whom is still at the stage of investigation, must definitely surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual and ordinary course. Needless to say, such application for regular bail will have to be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No further or specific direction need be necessary. 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a counter case also registered in respect of the same incident. The petitioners can point out this fact if the same be relevant as also all other relevant facts before the learned Magistrate when they seek regular bail. (R. BASANT) Judge tm