Suja Sunil Mathew vs M/S. Business India Chits on 23 August, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2710 of 2007()


1. SUJA SUNIL MATHEW, W/O. MR.SUNIL MATHEW,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S. BUSINESS INDIA CHITS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.SANTHARAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :23/08/2007

 O R D E R
                              R. BASANT, J.
                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Crl.M.C.No. 2710 of 2007
                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2007

                                  O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section

138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate.

The petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate and was

enlarged on bail. But subsequently the petitioner could not appear

before the learned Magistrate allegedly on account of her illness. The

learned Magistrate, reckoning her as absconding, has issued coercive

processes against the petitioner. Consequently she finds herself in

the unenviable predicament of warrants of arrest issued by the

learned Magistrate chasing the petitioner. It is in these

circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner her

absence was not willful.

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

Crl.M.C.No. 2710 of 2007
2

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 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

Crl.M.C.No. 2710 of 2007
3

merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender

itself.

5. Hand over the order.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm