NAJEEB HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common petitioner in these applications for anticipatory bail is the common accused in C.C.Nos.1312, 1311, 1313 and 1310 of 2002 respectively before the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. In all these cases the petitioner is prosecuted for an offence punishable under sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the dismissal of the complaint once by the learned Magistrate, the complaint was restored to file without notice to the petitioner and the petitioner who was doing business in Bangalore was unaware of the restoration of the complaint and that is the reason why he could not appear before the Magistrate and, therefore, non-bailable warrants of arrest are issued against him.

(3.) In as much as the learned Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail which will have the effect of nullifying the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. But, at the same time, I am inclined to grant the petitioner an opportunity to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail after submitting his grievance regarding non-receipt of summons subsequent to the restoration of the complaints. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam within ten days from today and file an application for regular bail in each of the above cases. The applications for bail shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which they are filed after examining the grievance of the petitioner that he did not receive any summons pursuant to the restoration of the complaints on file by the learned Magistrate.