High Court Kerala High Court

K.M.Ummer vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 10 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.M.Ummer vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 10 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2213 of 2007()


1. K.M.UMMER, AGED 45 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUNNY ANTO, AUTHORIZED BY THE HOLDER OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :10/07/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J.

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

                        Crl.M.C.No.2213 of 2007

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

                 Dated this the 10th   day of July 2007


                                  O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequent to

his non-appearance before the learned Magistrate, the learned

Magistrate has issued coercive processes to secure the presence

of the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, he is innocent of the

allegations raised. According to him, his absence was not wilful

and was due to reasons beyond his control. The petitioner

submits that he is willing to co-operate with the court for

expeditious disposal. He is willing to surrender before the

learned Magistrate. 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.

3. 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

Crl.M.C.No.2213/07 2

the learned Magistrate.

4. 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].

5. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case 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 unless there are

compelling reasons.

Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.2213/07 3

Crl.M.C.No.2213/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007