Shaji Yohanan vs The State Of Kerala on 2 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1787 of 2008()


1. SHAJI YOHANAN, AGED 38 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEW ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :02/05/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C.No.1787 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
                Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2008

                                  ORDER

Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequent to his non

appearance, coercive processes have been issued against him by

the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends arrest in

execution of such processes.

2. There is no representation for the petitioner. The

averments in the petition show that the petitioner is absolutely

innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate, it is

averred. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate

and apply for bail. But he apprehends that his application for

regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on

merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is therefore

prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in

favour of the petitioner.

3. It is 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

Crl.M.C.No.1787 of 2008 2

learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned

Magistrate would not consider such application 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 in Alice

George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)

KLT 339].

4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but

with the specific observation 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 proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits

and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-