M.M. Mathew @ Mathew M.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008

0
24
Kerala High Court
M.M. Mathew @ Mathew M.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1837 of 2008()


1. M.M. MATHEW @ MATHEW M.MATHEW,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :22/05/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C. No. 1837 of 2008
            -------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008

                               ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under

Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner

was enlarged on bail; but on 9/4/08 he remained absent.

Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner.

The petitioner finds such processes chasing him. He

apprehends imminent arrest. The petitioner prays that

appropriate directions under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be

issued to him.

2. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to

surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.

The petitioner apprehends that his application for regular bail

may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in

accordance with law and expeditiously.

Crl.M.C. No. 1837 of 2008 -: 2 :-

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

the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the

learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner’s

application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to

be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general

directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision

reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

(2003 (1) KLT 339).

4. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with

the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the

learned Magistrate and seeks 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.

Sd/-

                                         (R. BASANT, JUDGE)


Nan/

           //true copy//          P.S. to Judge

Crl.M.C. No. 1837 of 2008 -: 3 :-

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *