IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3770 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.200/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------- ABDUL LATHEEF @ PERMUDE LATHEEF, S/O.MUHAMMED, PERIYADKA HOUSE, PERMUDA.P.O, PAIVALIKA VILLAGE, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/ STATE --------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP;BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. P.P. SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3770 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a prosecution under the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings was registered. Summons was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared through counsel and prayed for time. That petition was dismissed and a non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued by the learned Magistrate to procure the presence of the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate. He apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He therefore prays that a Crl.M.C. No.3770 of 2008 -: 2 :- direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider his application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself in the light of the dicta in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339), Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22) and Sreekumar v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KLT 748). 3. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate is not aware of the law and shall not comply with the directions in the decisions referred above. Every court must do the same. If there be non-compliance, the petitioner's avenues for challenge/complaint shall remain. Every court must comply with such directions. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. 4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No.3770 of 2008 -: 3 :-