IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 93 of 2007()
1. P.K.SASIKUMAR, AGED 43,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/01/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.Nos. 93, 95, 96, 97, 99
100 & 103 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused in various prosecutions, all under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act, pending before the J.F.C.M. Court,
Ottapalam. They are co-accused together in some cases. In the
others they face prosecutions separately. The petitioners had
appeared before the learned Magistrate in one case initially. They
were enlarged on bail. But subsequently there has been no
appearance. In some other cases they had not entered appearance at
all. Warrants to procure their presence is pending in all these cases
against them.
2. The petitioners now want to appear before the learned
Magistrate. They apprehend that when they appear before the learned
Magistrate the learned Magistrate may not consider their applications
for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. They
have hence come to this court with a request that directions under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued in their favour directing the
learned Magistrate to release them on bail.
Crl.M.C.Nos. 93/07 & connected cases
2
3. I find no merit in the prayer. It is certainly for the petitioners to
appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate
the circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before the
learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that in these prosecutions
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act the learned Magistrate would remand
them to custody without considering their applications for bail 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice
George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).
3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but subject to the above
observations/directions. I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners
appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving
sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned
Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law
and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
HO (R. BASANT)
tm Judge
Crl.M.C.Nos. 93/07 & connected cases
3