Emy Rose vs State Of Kerala

G. Girish, J

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.23 of 2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, a case relating to the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a non-bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner, and that she apprehends remand to judicial custody upon surrender before the Trial Court.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is obviously bailable offence. The learned Magistrate is expected to take into account the law laid down by this Court in Biju S Praveen v. State of Kerala & another [2007 (2) KLT 280], when the accused surrenders before the said court and seeks bail. It is made clear that the learned Magistrate is not expected to invoke Section 436(2) Cr.P.C. for refusing bail unless there are clear circumstances pointing to the contumacious conduct and deliberate act on the part of the accused to subvert the cause of justice. Needless to say that the learned Magistrate is not expected to mechanically deny bail and remand the accused to custody for the sole reason that a non-bailable warrant is pending against her.

With the above observations, the petition is disposed of as follows:

(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate within 30 days from today.

(ii) Upon such surrender, the bail application, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of on the same day, bearing in mind the principles laid down by this Court in Biju Praveen v. State of Kerala cited supra.

(iii) In the meanwhile, there shall not be any coercive steps against the petitioner for securing her presence before the Trial Court.