AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 260 wordsA. Badharudeen, J
The third accused in S.T.No.24/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Irinjalakkuda is the petitioner herein. Respondents herein are the State of Kerala and the original complainant in the above case.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on admission.
Considering the short prayer, notice to the other respondents stands dispensed with.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that since the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court, his bail has been cancelled and notice issued against the sureties. Now, the petitioner apprehends arrest. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the trial court and file fresh bail application with solvent sureties. This submission is recorded.
In this case, the learned Magistrate initiated proceedings on forfeiture of bonds, after issuing Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner. The offence involved in this matter is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner shall surrender before the trial court within two weeks and if she files regular bail application, the trial court is directed to consider the same and pass orders on the same day itself since the offence is only one punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, a deemed offence.
It is made clear that the learned Magistrate is at liberty to go with the proceedings for forfeiture of the bail bond to realise the fine.