High Court Kerala High Court

T.Dileep Kumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 22 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
T.Dileep Kumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 22 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 493 of 2008()


1. T.DILEEP KUMAR ,S/O.THULASEEDHARAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VARGHESE PREM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :22/01/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                      B.A. No.493 OF 2008
            -------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008

                               ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces

indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The petitioner had received summons. He

had entered appearance through counsel. He had applied to

excuse his absence. That application was rejected. Coercive

processes have been issued against the petitioner. Such

processes are chasing the petitioner now.

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

His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. 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

B.A. No.493 OF 2008 -: 2 :-

with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that

the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the

learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears

before the learned Magistrate.

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

B.A. No.493 OF 2008 -: 3 :-

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