IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2952 of 2008()
1. NIZAR.P.I, S/O.P.K.ISMAIL, PAMBINEZHATH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.SREERAM INVESTM ENTS LTD, 2ND FLOOR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2952 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the
offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2004.
The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Reckoning
him as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been
issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. Such
processes are chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.
He was not available in India. He did not receive the notice of
demand under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act; nor did he receive any
notice or process from the court. He has now come to know of
the pendency of the proceedings against him. The petitioner,
Crl.M.C. No. 2952 of 2008 -: 2 :-
in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned
Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner 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, in these circumstances, that the petitioner
has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate
to release him 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 he 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).
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned
Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to
Crl.M.C. No. 2952 of 2008 -: 3 :-
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.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/