IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3123 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.601/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M.A. MOHAMMED, S/O. AMOO HAJI, BALADUKKA HOUSE, OPP. RIFAYIYA MASJID, CHERKALA.P.O, CHENGALA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3123 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner had been directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, on 30/7/08. He did not appear on that day. He filed an application through his counsel. That application was dismissed and coercive processes were issued against the petitioner. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him now. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He had entered appearance and was enlarged on bail. His absence on the date of posting was on account of reasonable beyond his control and he had made necessary application through his counsel to excuse his absence. In these circumstances, the petitioner submits that the execution of the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner may be stayed and the petitioner may be permitted to appear through counsel before the learned Magistrate and seek bail afresh on the strength of the same sureties. 3. From the submissions made at the Bar, I am satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The case now stands posted to 30/8/08. 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 Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Chief Judicial 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. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be a direction that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 30/8/08. On or before that date, the petitioner must surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner can then seek that he may be enlarged on bail on the strength of the sureties who have already executed bonds. Such request must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and in accordance with law. 6. Hand over copy of this order to the counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/