IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2453 of 2007()
1. JANARDHANAN V.C., AGED 47 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. LATHA, W/O MANIKKAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/08/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2453 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st 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 has been taken. The petitioner had
entered appearance. He was released on bail on 8.1.07. The
petitioner was later absent. The application to condone the absence
was dismissed. A non-bailable warrant has been issued against the
petitioner. The petitioner now finds such warrant of arrest chasing
him.
2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent. His
failure/omission to appear earlier was not wilful, but was due to
reasons beyond his control. He is willing to surrender before the
learned Magistrate and seek bail. He shall co-operate with the Court
for the expeditious disposal of the case. But he apprehends that his
application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate
on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. In these
circumstances it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued
to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail on the date
of surrender itself.
Crl.M.C.No. 2453 of 2007
2
3. It is certainly 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 the
application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he 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
merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender
itself.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm