High Court Kerala High Court

Baby.P.M vs The State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
Baby.P.M vs The State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4677 of 2007()


1. BABY.P.M.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :02/08/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J.

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

                           B.A.No.4677 of 2007

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

                 Dated this the 2nd day of August 2007




                                  O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces

indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. Cognizance has already been taken. Summons

was issued. The petitioner has not entered appearance. The

case has hence been transferred to the list of long pending

cases. Coercive processes issued by the learned Magistrate are

chasing the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is

absolutely innocent. His failure/omission to appear earlier was

not deliberate or wilful. No summons/notice was ever served on

the petitioner. The petitioner, in these circumstances, is willing

to appear 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.

B.A.No.4677/07 2

2. 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.

3. 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 bail application 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.






                                                       (R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

             // True Copy//          PA to Judge


B.A.No.4677/07    3


B.A.No.4677/07    4


       R.BASANT, J.





         CRL.M.CNo.





            ORDER





21ST DAY OF MAY2007