IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2832 of 2010() ----------------------------- LP.11/2006 of J.M.F.C.-I, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- PRASANTH N.KURUP, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, PRASANTH BHAVAN, MUNDENCAVU MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2832 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner purchased a motor cycle and only two installments were paid by way of cheques. Complaint was filed alleging offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and a case was taken on file against him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner settled the matter with defacto complainant and as per annexure- B receipt, he paid the entire amount. Hence, he was under the impression that complainant was not proceeding with the case. Petitioner's failure to appear in court is not willful, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor pointed out that petitioner had not appeared in court continuously and hence, he was treated as absconding accused. The case was entered in L.P. Register. His arrest is sought for, as per non bailable warrant issued by the court. Petitioner is involved in another case and defacto complainant in that case is same. B.A. No.2832/10 2 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner's presence is procured by the trial court, since he was absconding for a long time. Non-bailable warrant is issued accordingly. In the above circumstances, it may not be proper on the part of me to grant anticipatory bail to a person who is absconding. However, taking into consideration, the submission that the matter is already settled between parties etc., I find that certain directions can be issued in this case. Hence, the following order s passed: 1)Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court and he may bring the relevant facts to the notice of the trial court and seek bail if so advised. 2)If the petitioner surrenders before the trial court, within seven days from today and if any bail application is filed, it shall be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, considering all the contentions raised in this petition. 3)I make it clear that considerations for anticipatory bail and bail U/s.437 are different. This petition is disposed of accordingly. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.