IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2617 of 2008()
1. SANTHOSH MATHEW,S/O. ABRAHAM MATHEW
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.RAJAN, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/07/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2617 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance was taken as early as in
2005. Petitioner was not available and at long last he was
arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate on
24.4.2008. It is submitted that he was released on bail on that
day. The case was posted to 25.4.2008 and on that day the
petitioner did not appear. A warrant of arrest was issued against
the petitioner. He finds such coercive processes chasing him. He
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent.
His absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of
reasons beyond his control. He was laid up. The case of the
petitioner that he was laid up on 25.4.2008 when he was directed
to appear does certainly deserve more careful scrutiny. He is
Crl.M.C.No. 2617 of 2008
2
willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehends
that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned
Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
3. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances
under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate.
I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not
consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he
surrenders before 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George
v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).
4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe 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
Crl.M.C.No. 2617 of 2008
3
proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm