IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3345 of 2008() ------------------------- (AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN L.P. NO. 36/2001 (ARISING FROM CC.31/1996) OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERRY) ........................ PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- P.P.JOSEPH @ P.P.JOHNSON, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, PUNATHIL HOUSE, VARAPUZHA LANDING P.O. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH. RESPONDENTS/ STATE/ COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.P.JOY, S/O.PAULOSE, CHAVURAMPLACKIL HOUSE, VEMBILLY P.O., KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NOS. 3353/2008 & 3354/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. -------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos.3345, 3353 & 3354 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner in these three Crl.M.Cs. faces indictment in three different prosecutions – all under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, initiated by different complainants. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has not entered appearance in any of these cases. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate in these three cases. Such processes are 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 Crl.M.C. Nos.3345, 3353 & 3354 of 2008 -: 2 :- 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 (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior Crl.M.C. Nos.3345, 3353 & 3354 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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/