Sulfi.A vs Divakaran on 20 March, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 738 of 2007()


1. SULFI.A, ASEENA MANZIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DIVAKARAN, S/O KRISHNAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY STATE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :20/03/2007

 O R D E R
                                    R.BASANT, J

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

                            Crl.M.C.No.738 of 2007

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

                   Dated this the  20th day of March, 2007


                                       ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section

138 of the N.I Act. He had, it is submitted, appeared before the

learned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. He could not appear

before the learned Magistrate on one of the dates of posting.

Thereupon, warrant of arrest was issued against him. He finds the

warrant of arrest chasing him. He is willing to surrender before the

learned Magistrate. 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 powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked and a direction may be issued to

the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he

appears and applies for bail.

2. I do not find any need to invoke the powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C. 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 such application on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or

Crl.M.C.No.738 of 2007 2

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].

3. This Crl.M.C 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.

4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for

the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-