IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2708 of 2008 ------------------------------ [LP 141/2003 ARISING OUT OF ST 854/02 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.] .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ---------------------------- HAMSAKKUTTY, S/O.KUNJU, NARAYANATHU VEEDU, KARIYANNUR DESOM, ERUMAPPETTY P.O., THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.KANJAKKAT ITTAMAN CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K. C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C NO.2709 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos. 2708 & 2709 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner in these two Crl.M.Cs. faces indictment in two separate prosecutions pending before two different courts both under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by two different complainants. Cognizance was taken in these cases in 2002 and 2005. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrates so far and, in these circumstances, reckoning him as an absconding accused, the learned Magistrates have issued coercive processes against the petitioner and 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 Crl.M.C. Nos. 2708 & 2709 of 2008 -: 2 :- petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned Magistrates and seek regular bail. The petitioner apprehends that his applications for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrates 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 Magistrates to release him on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate. 3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrates and explain to the learned Magistrates the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrates. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrates would not consider the petitioner's applications 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 Magistrates and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior Crl.M.C. Nos. 2708 & 2709 of 2008 -: 3 :- notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrates must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Hand over 2 copies of this order to the counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge