IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3144 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.32/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KALPETTA. .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------- A.P.HARESSH, DISTRICT SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER, WAYANADU. BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008 ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.3145/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos. 3144 & 3145 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner in these two Crl.M.Cs. face indictment in two different cases – both under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and initiated by different complainants. Both are pending before the same court i.e., the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kalpetta. In one case, the petitioner had entered appearance and was enlarged on bail. In the other, the petitioner had not entered appearance. In that other case, a warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner as he did not appear before the learned Magistrate. Such warrant of arrest is chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner could not hence appear before the learned Magistrate in the other case also. A warrant of arrest has been issued in such other case also against the Crl.M.C. Nos. 3144 & 3145 of 2008 -: 2 :- petitioner by the learned Magistrate. Such coercive processes are chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner 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, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate. 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 learned Magistrate. 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 Crl.M.C. Nos. 3144 & 3145 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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 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. Nos. 3144 & 3145 of 2008 -: 4 :-