Sindhu Jose vs Javert on 4 July, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2146 of 2007()


1. SINDHU JOSE, AGED 35,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JAVERT, AKKARA HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :04/07/2007

 O R D E R
                                   R. BASANT, J.

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

                          Crl.M.C.No.  2146 of   2007

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

                    Dated this the   4th   day of   July, 2007


                                       O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecutions under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance has been taken. The

petitioner could not appear before the learned Magistrate on the date

of posting as the date was noted wrongly. Consequently non-

bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner reckoning him

as an absconding accused. According to the petitioner she is

absolutely innocent. Her absence was not willful and deliberate.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. But she

apprehends that her 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 release the petitioner on bail on the date

of surrender itself.

3. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances

under which she could not earlier appear before the learned

Crl.M.C.No. 2146 of 2007

2

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

not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when she

surrenders before the learned Magistrate, 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v.

Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).

4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however 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.

5. Hand over the order.

(R. BASANT)

Judge

tm