IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3498 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.1920/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- SANDHYA SUNIL KUMAR, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KUDAKKACHIRA P.O., MARANGATTUPALLY VIA, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT NO.1. ------------------------------ 1. SAJI JOHN, KARAPPARA VEETTIL, VAKATHANAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, M/S.KARAPPARA MINI CHITTY FUND, 36/6, TH1~RANSPORT NAGAR, NORWAI, JAMMU, TAWI-18001, ADINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3498 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioner – a woman, faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 20/6/08, the petitioner was not present when the case was posted finally for examination of the complainant. There was no representation on her behalf also. Her bail bond was cancelled. Coercive processes were issued against her. Such processes are chasing the petitioner now. 2. According to the petitioner, she is absolutely innocent. She wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner contends that the cancellation of the bond is not justified and that there were sufficient reasons for her to explain her absence on 20/6/08. The petitioner prays that appropriate directions may be issued under Sec.482 Crl.M.C. No. 3498 of 2008 -: 2 :- Cr.P.C. 3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which she could not appear before the learned Magistrate on 20/6/08 and thereafter. 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 bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned 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. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ Crl.M.C. No. 3498 of 2008 -: 3 :-