IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2788 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.114/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA C.R.NO.22/08 OF THIRUVALLA EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- RADHAMANI, D/O.MANDAKINI, KUZHIMALA HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM KIZHAKKU, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2788 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioner, a woman, faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Committal Proceedings has been registered. The petitioner was never arrested at any stage. According to the petitioner, she has received notice and she has entered appearance before the learned Magistrate through counsel. The case stands posted for the personal appearance of the petitioner now. 2. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But she apprehends that her application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously and favourably. In as much as the offence is triable by a court of session, the learned Magistrate is not likely to consider the application for bail on merits, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No.2788 of 2008 2 3. I find no merit in this apprehension at all. It has time and again been reiterated that the mere fact that the offence is triable by the Court of Session shall not ip so facto enable the Magistrate to abdicate the jurisdiction under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate is bound to consider the application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. I am not satisfied that any specific direction can or need be issued. 4. I must also alertly note that the learned Magistrate appears to have advisedly exercised his discretion under Section 204 Cr.P.C to issue only summons and not a warrant. Having chosen to issue the summons, it is improbable that the Magistrate would now choose to remand the accused even now she is willing to offer bail. I do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the apprehension aired by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for 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, in Crl.M.C. No.2788 of 2008 3 accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself, in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-