ALICE GEORGE Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS it possible for the system to clean up the corridors of our criminal courts by removing the dissatisfied, disgruntled and frustrated crowd of complaints, accused persons and witnesses who throng there unnecessarily? IS it possible to usher in a user - friendly and optimum -productivity ambience in those court rooms ? These questions of seminal importance do arise for consideration in this Criminal M. C. where the precise and specific question raised is not very crucial or vital.

(2.) THIS petition is filed under S. 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the 9th accused in C. C. 102/99. She faces indictment under S. 420 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with many others. Some co-accused have not entered appearance so far. There are three identical cases. The petitioner is allegedly a sleeping/non-active partner of a partnership firm. The firm is a financial concern. The alleged offence has been committed by the partners of the firm against one of its customers in respect of a cheque for Rs. 20,000/ -. At the request of the petitioner the three cases were being posted on the same dates. On 31. 10. 2000 when one of the cases was called (C. C. 102/99) the petitioner and her counsel were absent. There was no representation. The court thereupon issued nonbailable warrant against the petitioner under the impugned order.

(3.) RECORDS have not been called for. I accept the submissions made by the learned counsel Sri. Chandy Joseph at the bar. I am shocked to hear that some of the subordinate criminal courts follows the unreasonable practice of insisting that an accused who surrenders must remain in custody at least for a day before his application for bail is considered and appropriate orders passed. I wish that these submissions were incorrect and only exaggerations or over simplified generalisations. I have no hesitation to express firmly that such a practise is inhuman and unjust. Every application for bail by an accused who surrenders in a pending case must be considered expeditiously and orders passed on the dates of such application. Unless compelling reasons are there orders on merits must be passed on such applications on the date of surrender itself. Such applications must of course be filed with prior notice to the respondents, wherever necessary.