IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2377 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.105/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SADASIVA SHETTY @ SADASIVAN, S/O. MUNDAPPA SHETTY, XIII/2437, MANGALPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1 EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, KUMBLA. 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2377 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner has appeared through his counsel on the first day. He made an application for his absence. The same was dismissed and a non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. Such warrant is chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of arguments, submits that the only grievance that he seeks redressal and the only specific prayer which he wants to claim Crl.M.C. No. 2377 of 2008 -: 2 :- in this Crl.M.C. is that his application for bail to be filed before the learned Magistrate when he appears, may be considered and disposed of expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. 3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner's application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the observation 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 must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say, Crl.M.C. No. 2377 of 2008 -: 3 :- the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/