IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2006 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 4009 of 2006() ------------------------- CC.675/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 ------------ 1. P.K.SASIKUMAR, AGED 43, S/O.LATE M.P.NAIR, KARTHIKA, MANNISSERI, OTTAPALAM. 2. LATHA SASIKUMAR, AGED 39, W/O.SASIKUMAR, KARTHIKA, MANNISSERI, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS:STATE OF KERALA ------------- THE STATE OF KERAL, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.A.AKBAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NOs.4009 & 4010 OF 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2006. ORDER The common petitioners-the spouses face indictment in two separate prosecutions under Section 138 of the N.I Act. They find warrants of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate chasing them and have come to this Court apprehending that the learned Magistrate may not favourably consider their applications for bail when they appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. It is prayed that directions may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioners on bail when they surrender and make application for bail. 2. I find no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the applications to be filed by the petitioners on merits, expeditiously and in accordance with law. Every Court must do the same. The mere fact that non bailable warrants issued are pending against them is no reason not to consider their fresh application for bail expeditiously and in accordance with law. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. Crl.M.C.NOs.4009 & 4010 OF 2006 2 3. In the result, thes Crl.M.Cs are dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply 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. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd petitioner, a woman and a teacher is entitled to be exempted from personal appearance and she does not deserve to be vexed by insistence on personal appearance on all dates of posting. When the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate must proceed to record their plea straight away and should not insist on unnecessary ritualistical personal appearance of the 2nd petitioner. Her application for exemption must also be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law and appropriate orders must be passed on the date of her appearance. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners today itself. R.BASANT JUDGE rtr/