IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2115 of 2008()
1. KURSHEEDA SRAJ
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. K.SIJU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2115 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner – a woman, faced indictment in a
prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The said case was registered in 1998. After trial, the petitioner
was found not guilty and acquitted. The complainant
preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed and the matter
was remanded for fresh consideration. The petitioner has not
entered appearance thereafter. Reckoning the petitioner as
an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued
against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent
arrest.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Her absence earlier was
not wilful or deliberate. She had not received any notice,
Crl.M.C. No. 2115 of 2008 -: 2 :-
process or summons from the court. She was ignorant of the
continuance of the proceedings against her. It is, in these
circumstances, that the petitioner did/could not appear before
the learned Magistrate. The petitioner, in these circumstances,
wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek
regular bail. The petitioner apprehends that her application for
regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on
merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these
circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for a
direction to the learned Magistrate to release her on bail when
he appears before the learned Magistrate.
3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the
circumstances under which she could not earlier appear before
the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the
learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner’s
application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law
and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to
be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general
directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision
reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
(2003 (1) KLT 339).
Crl.M.C. No. 2115 of 2008 -: 3 :-
4. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with
the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the
learned Magistrate and seeks 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.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge