Krishnankutty vs State Of Kerala on 5 September, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3433 of 2008()



1. KRISHNANKUTTY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJIT

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :05/09/2008

 O R D E R
                              R. BASANT, J.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     Crl.M.C.No. 3433 of 2008
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008

                                 O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences

punishable under Sections 138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance appears to

have been taken in 2006, as can be deciphered from the number

assigned to the case – ST 1380 of 2006. The petitioner has not

appeared so far. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused,

cervices processes have been issued against him by the learned

Magistrate. Such processes are chasing him. The petitioner

apprehends imminent arrest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is absolutely innocent. His absence was not willful or deliberate, but on

account of reasons beyond his control. 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.

-: 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.

5. Hand over the order.

                                               (R. BASANT)
tm                                                 Judge