IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3717 of 2007()
1. NAJJIM M.SAHIB, 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/12/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3717 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2007
O R D E R
Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had
entered appearance before the learned Magistrate. He had taken
part in the proceedings. The matter stood posted to 17.09.07 for
final hearing. On that day, the petitioner, a native of Kottayam,
could not proceed to the court at Hosdurg to appear in person.
He allegedly had informed his counsel about his inability to
appear. The grievance of the petitioner now is that his counsel
reported no instructions on that day and consequently a warrant
of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner
finds such warrant of arrest chasing him. The bail bond has also
been cancelled, it is submitted.
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.
He had not shown any disrespect to the proceedings of the court.
He had instructed his counsel and the report of no instructions by
the counsel was an unexpected one. The petitioner is willing to
Crl.M.C.No.3717 of 2007 2
surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.
But he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be
considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance
with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that directions
under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the
petitioner.
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 such application 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 in Alice
George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)
KLT 339].
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before
the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient
Crl.M.C.No.3717 of 2007 3
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.
5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, I direct that the warrant of arrest issued against the
petitioner shall not be executed till 22.12.2007. On or before
that date, the petitioner must appear before the learned
Magistrate and seek regular bail.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.3717 of 2007 4