High Court Kerala High Court

Madhu @ Joy vs State Of Kerala on 3 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
Madhu @ Joy vs State Of Kerala on 3 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3038 of 2007()


1. MADHU @ JOY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. APPUKUTTAN, S/O. KRISHNAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :03/10/2007

 O R D E R
                                R.BASANT, J.
                             ----------------------
                        Crl.M.C.No.3038 of 2007
                       ----------------------------------------
                Dated this the 3rd day of October 2007

                                  O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On an earlier occasion,

warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and he was

constrained to remain in custody for the period – 17/2/2007 to

12/3/2007, it is submitted. The learned Magistrate had directed the

petitioner to appear before Lok Adalath. The petitioner did not

appear before Lok Adalath. Warrant of arrest issued by the learned

Magistrate is chasing the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His

absence before the Lok Adalath was not wilful or deliberate. The

petitioner is willing to surrender 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.

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

Crl.M.C.No.3038/07 2

Magistrate. 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 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.

5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there

shall be a direction that the warrant of arrest issued against the

petitioner shall not be executed till 12/10/2007. In the meantime, the

petitioner must surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for

regular bail.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

Crl.M.C.No.3038/07 3

Crl.M.C.No.3038/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007