SURESH @ SURENDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the 3rd accused, in Crime No.95 of 2008 of the Excise Range Office, Mavelikkara for the offence punishable under Sections 8(1), (2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act for dealing with 595 wash and 15 litres of arrack on 19.11.2008, is in custody from 21.10.2013 and requests for bail.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner was absconding and that final report is filed in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Mavelikkara. Learned magistrate took the case on file as C.P. No.68 of 2012.

(3.) I am not able to accept either of the above contentions. Decisions relied on by the learned counsel only stated that when court issues summons and the accused appears pursuant to that summons he should not be taken by surprise by ordering his judicial custody. Here, it is not when the petitioner appeared on summons that his detention was ordered. May be, appearing through counsel he applied for exemption. It was well within the power of the learned magistrate to consider whether that application could be allowed or not. When the exemption application was rejected that can be followed by a non -bailable warrant. I find no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the learned magistrate.