IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2007 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 6595 of 2007() ----------------------------- ST.5122/2003 of J.M.F.C.-III,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------- ROYSON, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.ANTO, MADATHIVILAKAM HOUSE, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: STATE OF KERALA: ----------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.6595 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of November 2007 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case was taken cognizance in 2003. The petitioner had entered appearance and was enlarged on bail earlier, it is submitted. But the petitioner was not able to appear before the learned Magistrate on 8/6/2007 and 15/8/2007 due to illness. The matter was posted for recording the 313 statement of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has now taken coercive steps against the petitioner. The petitioner finds such coercive processes issued by the learned Magistrate chasing him. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner 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 accordance with law and expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions under B.A.No.6595/07 2 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 Criminal Miscellaneous Case 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. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.6595/07 3 B.A.No.6595/07 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007