High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SHAHUL HAMEED v. STATE- REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - Crl MC No. 1119 of 2007  RD-KL 7293 (9 April 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 1119 of 2007()
1. SHAHUL HAMEED,
1. STATE- REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.CRL.M.C.NO. 1119 OF 2007
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2007
ORDERThe petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though he was served with summons to appear before the learned Magistrate on 20/11/06, he has not appeared before the learned Magistrate till this day. Consequently, the learned Magistrate has issued a non-bailable warrant to secure the presence of the petitioner. It is submitted that the non- bailable warrant has been handed over to the complainant for execution by the police.
2. The petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. But he apprehends that before he appears before the learned Magistrate, he may be arrested vexatiously and that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and CRL.M.C.NO. 1119 OF 2007 -: 2 :- expeditiously. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court with the prayer that he may be permitted to surrender before the learned Magistrate on any date to be specified by the court without the risk and threat of his being arrested before he so surrenders. He further prays that appropriate direction may be issued under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to dispose of the bail application on merits on the date of surrender itself.
3. I am not satisfied that the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. deserve to be invoked. 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 reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the CRL.M.C.NO. 1119 OF 2007 -: 3 :- observation that the non-bailable warrant shall not be executed against the petitioner till 12/4/07. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on that day. His application for bail shall be considered by the learned Magistrate and dispose of on merits and expeditiously on that day itself.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.