Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOMARAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SOMARAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 4003 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 3123 (11 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 4003 of 2006()

1. SOMARAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. MOHAN MENON, MONAN'S COTTAGE,

For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN

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.NO.4003 OF 2006

Dated this the 11th day of December, 2006.

ORDER

The petitioner is an accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. He had entered appearance before the learned Magistrate, but he was later not available for trial. The learned Magistrate, in these circumstances, is proceeding to issue coercive process to secure the presence of the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, he had valid reasons for not appearing before the learned Magistrate. He was under compulsion of circumstances obliged to proceed to his place of employment and that was the reason why he was not present before the learned Magistrate when the case was called. The petitioner now wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered promptly, favourably and on merits by the learned Magistrate. He therefore prays that a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued to release him on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate.

3. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the Crl.M.C.NO.4003 OF 2006 2 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 application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. 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].

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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 proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself, unless there are compelling reasons. 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.