IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 794 of 2011() ------------------------ ST.4/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VIII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------- P.T.AJAYAKUMAR, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, KILLIPALAM, KARAMANA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P.O., RESIDING AT POOVANMALA PADINJATTATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA POST, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. K.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN, SANGEETHA BHAVAN, CHOOZHAMPALA, MUKKOLACKAL POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695044. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV SMT M K PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.794 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of March, 2011 ORDER Notice to first respondent is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass. 2. Petitioner is accused in S.T.No.4 of 2009 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram facing trial for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate released petitioner on bail. The first respondent was examined as PW1 on 20.01.2011. After the close of proceedings on that day, petitioner went to his house at Pathanamthitta. On the evening counsel informed petitioner that the case is posted on the next day (21.01.2011) but it happened that on that day petitioner had to urgently go to Ernakulam and hence he could not attend Court on 21.01.2011. An application for adjournment was filed by the petitioner but was not considered by the learned Magistrate, it is represented. Instead the bail bond was cancelled and non bailable warrant was issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel states that learned Magistrate was not correct in passing such an order. Crl.M.C.No.794 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. It is not necessary that whenever an accused is absent, bail bond has to be cancelled the same moment. In the case on hand if the version of petitioner were correct, his lawyer had represented him on 20.01.2011 but petitioner could not appear in court on 21.01.2011. In that situation, if a request for adjournment was made it could have been granted. On the absence of petitioner if non bailable warrant was issued to the petitioner that cannot be said to be illegal. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner to file application for regular bail. Resultantly this petition is disposed of granting two weeks' time to the petitioner from this day to appear in the court below and seek regular bail. If petitioner preferred an application for bail learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders on that application as early as possible having regard to the nature of offence and all relevant facts and circumstances. Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance during the said period of two weeks or till petitioner appears in the court below, whenever is earlier. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-