IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2002 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.153/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NEDUMKANDOM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ THULASIDHARAN PIALLAI, S/O. SIVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.206, KURISUMALA KARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BYJU KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2002 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered. The learned Magistrate has issued summons to the petitioner to appear on 02.06.08. 2. Though the petitioner has received summons to appear, the petitioner entertains a lingering apprehension that if and when he appears before the learned Magistrate, the offence being one punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act, the learned Magistrate may not grant him regular bail. The petitioner through counsel has come to this Court with a prayer that appropriate directions may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail. 3. I note that the learned Magistrate has issued only a summons to secure the presence of the accused. I must in the absence of any better material assume that the learned Magistrate has advisedly exercised the discretion under Section 204 Cr.P.C to issue only a summons and not a warrant. The Crl.M.C. No.2002 of 2008 2 apprehension of the petitioner that he may be arrested and detained, does not, in these circumstances, really appear to me to be sound. Be that as it may, it is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. I find no merit in the apprehension that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. 4. 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 and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say that the learned Magistrate has to consider the bail application in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22] and the fact that he has already conveyed to the petitioner that he has exercised his discretion Crl.M.C. No.2002 of 2008 3 under Section 204 Cr.P.C to issue only summons and not a warrant. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-