P RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common petitioner in these two Crl.M.Cs. faces indictment in two separate prosecutions - both under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act and both initiated by the same complainant/ respondent herein. The proceedings were initiated in 2006. The petitioner had entered appearance through counsel; but had not appeared personally. Consequently, warrants of arrest have been issued by the learned Magistrate to secure the presence of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is now willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends that learned Magistrate may not consider his application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He therefore prays that directions may be issued under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to the learned Magistrate to release the him on bail when he appears and applies for bail.

(3.) 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).