Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.P.MOHAMMED versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.P.MOHAMMED v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 2618 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 15973 (17 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2618 of 2007()

1. V.P.MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.HABEEB

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :17/08/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C. No. 2618 OF 2007

Dated this the 17th day of August, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner had appeared before the learned Magistrate. He was enlarged on bail. But subsequently as he failed to appear before the learned Magistrate, a warrant of arrest was issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His failure/omission to appear before the learned Magistrate was not wilful; but was due to reasons beyond his control. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these Crl.M.C. No. 2618 OF 2007 -: 2 :- circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate.

2. 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).

3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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 and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan //true copy// P.S. to Judge


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.