IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 185 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.67/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- P.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE N.K.PONNAMMA, NARAKATHARA VEEDU, KUMARAPURAM P.O. HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. V.RADHAKRISHNAN PERINETHU VEEDU KADAMPOOR MURI, CHENGANNUR TALUK 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPERSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.185 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matter stood posted for examination of witnesses on 18/10/2008. On that day, the petitioner could not appear. The matter was adjourned to 31/10/2008. On that day also, the petitioner could not appear. It is submitted at the Bar that on both days applications were filed to exempt the petitioner from appearance. The petitioner's mother was laid up and she eventually expired and that was the reason why the petitioner could not appear on those days. Coercive processes issued by the learned Magistrate are chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier 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 Crl.M.C.No. 185/09 2 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 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 petition 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. Crl.M.C.No. 185/09 3 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be an interim direction that the coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 23/01/2009. On or before that date, the petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. Needless to say while considering the bail application, the learned Magistrate shall consider all the relevant circumstances including the circumstance that for the absence of the petitioner, applications were filed on the relevant date as also the health condition of the petitioner and his mother at the relevant time. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No. 185/09 4 Crl.M.C.No. 185/09 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008