Allowed

Santha v. the Excise Inspector

Kerala HC18 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1683/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application by an accused woman seeking a direction for the Magistrate to consider her bail application on the date of surrender, citing Sukumari vs State of Kerala, thereby removing her apprehension that her surrender would be pending.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Magistrate to consider and dispose of the bail application on the date of surrender after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Santha Vs the Excise Inspector — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/27TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1683 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 83/2013 OF CHELANNUR EXCISE RANGE, KOZHIKODE.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SANTHA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.VELUKUTTY, CHELANOOR EXCISE RANGE, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE- 673 117.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. P.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 1683 of 2014

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶20

ANNEXURE A. COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE PREVENTIVE OFFICER, CHELANNUR RANGE ON 08.12.2013.

¶21

ANNEXURE B. COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 08.12.2013.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-

NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

¶28

==============================

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.1683 of 2014

¶30

============================== Dated this, the 18^th day of March, 2014.

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

This is an application filed by the accused in Crime No.83/13 of Chelannur Excise Range to give direction to the magistrate under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶33

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the accused in Crime No.83/13 of Chelannur Excise Range and that was registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offences under Sections 8(1) & 2 of the Abkari Act. She was not arrested at the time of detection stating that she is a woman. No attempt has been made by the first respondent to arrest the petitioner. Now, she wants to surrender before the court and seek for bail. She apprehends that, if she surrenders, her bail application will not be considered on the date of surrender. So, she has no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief:

¶34

“ To direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtIII, Kozhikode to consider and pass appropriate orders in the bail application of the petitioner to be filed in Crime

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.1683 of 2014 : 2 :

¶36

No.83/2013 of the Chelannur Excise Range, on the date of her surrender itself, in the light of the judgment in Sukumari V State of Kerala (2001(1) KLT 22)”

¶37

Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at

¶38

the admission stage itself after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

The apprehension of the petitioner in the petition was that, if she surrenders before the court and move for bail, her bail application will not be considered by the court on the same date of surrender. The apprehension of the petitioner appears to be not genuine because, courts are expected to dispose of the bail applications filed by the accused persons on surrender as far as possible on the date of surrender itself, unless compelling circumstances warrant the postponement of the passing of orders on those applications to a future date. So, even without a direction, the magistrate is bound to pass orders on the application on the date of filing itself. However, considering the circumstances mentioned in the petition, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.1683 of 2014 : 3 :

¶41

If the petitioner surrenders before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-III, Kozhikode, and moves for bail application in Crime No.83/13 of Chelannur Excise Range, then, the learned magistrate is directed to consider that application and dispose of the same after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court as far as possible on the date of filing the application itself and also considering the principles laid down in Sukumari Vs.

¶42

State of Kerala 2001(1) KLT 22.

¶43

With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.

¶44

Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.

¶45

¶46

[True copy]

¶47

P.A to Judge

Santha v. the Excise Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santha v. the Excise Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

O.N.Shila Vs State of Kerala

George Kutty Vs Rajesh.M.P

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Semil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Susheela Vs State of Kerala

B.Kanakamma Kunjamma Vs State of Kerala