IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2934 of 2007()
1. ASHOK KUMAR,
... Petitioner
2. JALAJA ASHOK KUMAR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. RAJENDRAN V., S/O. VELAYUDHAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHANAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/09/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2934 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners reside
permanently in Pune. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioners
had entered appearance and were enlarged on bail. They were
granted exemption from personal appearance also. On 13.08.07,
when the case was posted, the petitioners were directed to appear.
As they were laid up, they could not appear. Consequently the
learned Magistrate has issued warrants of arrest against the
petitioners dismissing Annexure-A2 petition filed on their behalf to
condone their absence. The petitioners find such warrants of arrest
issued by the learned Magistrate chasing them.
2. According to them, they are absolutely innocent. There
was no wilful laches on their part at all. They were laid up and an
application to that effect has been filed also. The petitioners are
willing to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.
But they apprehend that their application for regular bail may not be
considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with
law and expeditiously.
Crl.M.C.No.2934 of 2007 2
3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances
under which they 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 Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the specific observation that if the petitioners appear before the
learned Magistrate and apply 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.
5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there
shall be a direction that the warrants of arrest issued against the
petitioners shall not be executed till 08.10.07. The petitioners shall
appear before the learned Magistrate and seek bail on or before that
date.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.2934 of 2007 3
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.2934 of 2007 4