Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.K.SASIKUMAR, AGED 43 versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.K.SASIKUMAR, AGED 43 v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY - Crl MC No. 4009 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 3099 (11 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 4009 of 2006()

1. P.K.SASIKUMAR, AGED 43,
... Petitioner

2. LATHA SASIKUMAR, AGED 39, W/O.SASIKUMAR,

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :11/12/2006

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.NOs.4009 & 4010 OF 2006

Dated this the 11th day of December, 2006.

ORDER

The common petitioners-the spouses face indictment in two separate prosecutions under Section 138 of the N.I Act. They find warrants of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate chasing them and have come to this Court apprehending that the learned Magistrate may not favourably consider their applications for bail when they appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. It is prayed that directions may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioners on bail when they surrender and make application for bail.

2. I find no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the applications to be filed by the petitioners on merits, expeditiously and in accordance with law. Every Court must do the same. The mere fact that non bailable warrants issued are pending against them is no reason not to consider their fresh application for bail expeditiously and in accordance with law. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. Crl.M.C.NOs.4009 & 4010 OF 2006 2

3. In the result, thes Crl.M.Cs are dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd petitioner, a woman and a teacher is entitled to be exempted from personal appearance and she does not deserve to be vexed by insistence on personal appearance on all dates of posting. When the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate must proceed to record their plea straight away and should not insist on unnecessary ritualistical personal appearance of the 2nd petitioner. Her application for exemption must also be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law and appropriate orders must be passed on the date of her appearance.

5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners today itself. R.BASANT

JUDGE

rtr/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.