IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5055 of 2007()
1. ABDULLAKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/08/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.5055 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The petitioner had entered appearance
through his counsel. The case was adjourned to 25/6/2007. On
that day, the petitioner fell ill and the counsel was duly
instructed. But the counsel could not file an application to
excuse the absence of the petitioner. Consequently a warrant of
arrest was issued by the learned Magistrate against the
petitioner. The petitioner finds a warrant of arrest issued by
the learned Magistrate chasing him.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was
not wilful but was due to reasons beyond his control. The
petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate on
the next date of posting i.e. on 20/08/2007. But he apprehends
that he may have to suffer vexation by arrest and detention. He
B.A.No.5055/07 2
further apprehends that his application for regular bail may not
be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in
accordance with law and expeditiously. He, therefore, prays
that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the
learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he
appears and applies for bail.
3. I find absolutely no merit in the apprehension aired by
the petitioner. 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.
4. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned
Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed
by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or
specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general
directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy
Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].
5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed but
with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders
B.A.No.5055/07 3
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, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date
of surrender itself.
6. It is directed that the warrant of arrest issued against
the petitioner shall not be executed till 20/08/2007. The
petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate and seek
regular bail on or before that date.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.5055/07 4
B.A.No.5055/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007