Babu vs Radhakrishnan on 19 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 5005 of 2008()


1. BABU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RADHAKRISHNAN, 48 YEARS, S/O.VELLA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/12/2008

 O R D E R
                          R.BASANT, J.
                       ----------------------
                    Crl.M.C.No.5005 of 2008
                   ----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 19th day of December 2008

                              O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The petitioner had appeared before the

learned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. Trial had

commenced. The petitioner did not cross-examine the

complainant. On the adjourned date, the petitioner or his

counsel were not present. Reckoning the petitioner as an

absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued

against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner

apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes.

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

His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner

is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek

regular bail. But he apprehends that his application for 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.

Crl.M.C.No.5005/08 2

7 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 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].

4. In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the

specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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.

Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

Crl.M.C.No.5005/08 3

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

Crl.M.C.No.5005/08 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.No. of 2008

ORDER

09/07/2008