High Court Kerala High Court

Ranjan.V. vs The State Of Kerala Rep. By Public on 14 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ranjan.V. vs The State Of Kerala Rep. By Public on 14 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 184 of 2008()


1. RANJAN.V., S/O.NADESHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

2. SIVARAM TRANSPORT FINANCIERS  LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.SUDHAMANI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :14/01/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.184 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008

                                  ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has not so far

appeared before the learned Magistrate. Coercive processes

have been issued against the petitioner by the learned

Magistrate. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him.

2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.

His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. 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 438 and/or 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

B.A.No.184 of 2008 2

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 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 bail application 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/-