Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAIMON, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ACHUTHAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAIMON, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ACHUTHAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 1144 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 7385 (10 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1144 of 2007()

1. JAIMON, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ACHUTHAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.TOMY THOMAS (KUZHUPPILLY)

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :10/04/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 1144 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 10th day of April, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Proceedings were initiated as early as in 2003. According to the petitioner, he has very valid defence to urge in the prosecution. He had apprised the complainant of his defence that he is not responsible for the cheque. The complainant had promised to withdraw the complaint. But he has not withdrawn the complaint and hence the petitioner finds himself in an unenviable predicament of warrant and coercive processes issued by the learned Magistrate chasing him. The petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. He apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is in these circumstances prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail.

2. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances Crl.M.C.No. 1144 of 2007 2 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 direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).

3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but subject to the above observations/directions. I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


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.