Ravi Prakash vs State Represented By Public … on 13 April, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1190 of 2007()


1. RAVI PRAKASH, S/O.LAKSHMANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :13/04/2007

 O R D E R
                                 R. BASANT, J.

                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                        Crl.M.C.No.  1190 of   2007

                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                   Dated this the 13th day of   April, 2007


                                     O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section

138 of the N.I. Act. According to the petitioner he had not received

any notice. But he now finds himself in the unenviable

predicament of a warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate

chasing him. The petitioner is 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. It is in these circumstances

prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the learned

Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail on the date of surrender

itself.

2. 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 on merits, in accordance

Crl.M.C.No. 1190 of 2007

2

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 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

4. Hand over copy of the order.

(R. BASANT)

Judge

tm