IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2001 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.245/2005 of J.F.C.M COURT IV, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------ G.JYOTHIKUMAR, G.R.O.SADANAM, CHEMMANTHUR, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ING VYSA BANK, RETAIL BANKING DIVISION, SHEMA BUILDING, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-16. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.CNo.2001 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was enlarged on bail. Later he could not appear before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate issued coercive processes against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But he 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 therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 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 Crl.M.CNo.2001 of 2008 2 learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears 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 and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-