SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138of theNegotiableInstrumentsAct.Thoughhewas served with summons to appear before the learned Magistrate on 20/11/06, he has not appeared before the learned Magistrate till this day. Consequently, the learned Magistrate has issued a non-bailable warrant to secure the presence of the petitioner. It is submitted that the non- bailable warrant has been handed over to the complainant for execution by the police.

(2.) The petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. But he apprehends that before he appears before the learned Magistrate, he may be arrested vexatiously and that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. In these circumstances,the petitioner has come to this Court with the prayer that he may be permitted to surrender before the learned Magistrate on any date to be specified by the court without the risk and threat of his being arrested before he so surrenders. He further prays that appropriate direction may be issued under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to dispose of the bail application on merits on the date of surrender itself.

(3.) I amnot satisfied that the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. deserve to be invoked. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstancesunderwhich he could notearlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner's application for regularbail 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 inAlice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police(2003 (1) KLT 339).