Shahul Hameed vs Rayson Joseph on 19 December, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3799 of 2007()


1. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. MUSTAFA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RAYSON JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SABU THOZHUPPADAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/12/2007

 O R D E R
                           R.BASANT, J.
                        ----------------------
                 Crl.M.C.Nos.3799 & 3801 of 2007
                    ----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 19th day of December 2007

                               O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in two separate

prosecutions one under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act initiated by a stranger and the other under

Section 498A initiated against him by his wife. Prosecutions are

pending before two different courts. In both cases, cognizance

has been taken by the learned Magistrates. In both cases, the

petitioner had entered appearance and was enlarged on bail

initially; but subsequently he has not been appearing. Warrants

of arrest and coercive processes have been issued by the learned

Magistrates against the petitioners.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is absolutely innocent in both cases. His absence

earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner is willing to

surrender before the learned Magistrates and seek regular bail.

But he apprehends that his applications for bail may not be

considered by the learned Magistrates 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

Magistrates to release the petitioner on bail when he appears

and applies for bail.

Crl.M.C.No.3799/07 2

3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrates and explain to the learned Magistrates, the

circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before

the learned Magistrates. I find absolutely no reason to assume

that the learned Magistrates would not consider the applications

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, these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are

dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner

surrenders before the learned Magistrates and applies for bail,

after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of

the case, the learned Magistrates must proceed to pass

appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

5. Hand over two copies of this order to the learned

counsel for the petitioner for production before the courts

concerned.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

Crl.M.C.No.3799/07 3

Crl.M.C.No.3799/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007