IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3054 of 2008()
1. VARGHESE.M.VARGHESE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.J.MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3054 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the
offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Cognizance was taken in 2008. The petitioner had entered
appearance and was enlarged on bail. The petitioner had
entrusted the matter to his counsel and was under the
impression that the needful was being done by the learned
counsel. But unfortunately, the learned counsel for the
petitioner went abroad without informing the petitioner and
without making adequate arrangements for the conduct of the
case. The counsel and the petitioner were not present before
court later on various dates. In these circumstances, the court
reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused has issued
coercive processes against the petitioner. Such processes are
Crl.M.C. No.3054 of 2008 -: 2 :-
chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner apprehends
imminent arrest in execution of such processes.
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 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
Crl.M.C. No.3054 of 2008 -: 3 :-
(2003 (1) KLT 339).
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. 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.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/