IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2657 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- ST.804/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- MANI C. KAPPAN, KAPPIL HOUSE PALAI P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. INDIAN BANK, SHANMUGHAM ROAD ERNAKULAM, REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER SHRI.A.X. GEORGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, A/W. CRMC 2658 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.Nos.2657 & 2658 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The common petitioner in these petitions faces allegations in two separate prosecutions, both under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and both initiated by the same complainant. The petitioner had entered appearance. Trial had commenced. The matter has reached the stage of S.313 examination. The petitioner has to leave India for treatment abroad. He had apprised the learned Magistrate of the fact that he has to leave, but he could not come back within the stipulated period of time. In these circumstances the learned Magistrate, reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, has issued coercive processes against him. He apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was unforeseen delay at the place of treatment and that is why the petitioner could not appear as undertaken before the learned Magistrate. There was no wilful default on the part of the Crl.M.C.Nos.2657 & 2658 of 2008 2 petitioner. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 3. It is certainly 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 Sessions Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe 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 Crl.M.C.Nos.2657 & 2658 of 2008 3 proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is even now abroad and has not been able to return to India. He shall return within 45 days and surrender before the learned Magistrate, it is submitted. The petitioner can bring this fact to the notice of the learned Magistrate. (R. BASANT) Judge tm