1. The question involved in these Bail Applications is whether the accused, who is involved in an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is a bailable offence, is entitled to bail as of right when he violated the terms of granting bail and when it was found that he was absconding for several years.

2. The petitioner is the accused in two cases on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, wherein the offence alleged against him is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. In S.T. No. 66 of 2007, summons was served on the petitioner in March 2007. He did not appear on summons. Non bailable warrant for his arrest was issued. He could not be arrested. Steps under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were taken. While so, on 9-8-2007, the petitioner surrendered before court. He was granted bail. Later, he violated the conditions of bail and absconded. Again, proceedings were taken under Sections 82 and 83. On 20-9-2008, the case was transferred to the Register of long pending cases as L.P. No. 52 of 2008. Later, the petitioner surrendered before Court on 24-3-2009. He was granted bail and the case was taken to the pending file as S.T. No. 146 of 2009. Even thereafter, the petitioner absconded. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel did appear. Again, non bailable warrant was issued and steps were taken under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code The case was again transferred to the Long Pending Register as L.P.No. 3 of 2010. The petitioner surrendered before Court on 16-2-2010 and sought for bail. The case was taken up as pending file in S.T. No. 70 of 2010. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application for bail holding that "no explanation was offered by the petitioner for his non appearance for trial." The court also held that there was wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner in the matter of appearance before court.

4. In S.T. No. 281 of 2008 also, the petitioner did not appear. Non bailable warrant was issued and steps were taken under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner surrendered before Court and bail was granted. After several adjournments sought for settling the case, the trail was commenced. Evidence was taken. The case was posted on 22-8-2008 for questioning the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner absconded. Non bailable warrant was issued. Steps were again taken under sections 82 and 83 Criminal Procedure Code The petitioner surrendered before Court on 16-2-2010 and sought for bail. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application for bail.

5. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Bail Applications seeking bail.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence being bailable, the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the Bail Application. He relied on the decision in Manoj Kumar v. State of Kerala, 1990(1) KLT 120. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that section 436(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to deny bail in the facts and circumstances of the present cases.

7. I also heard Sri. M. Sasindran, Advocate, who ably assisted the court as amicus curiae.

8. Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows :

"436. In what cases bail to be taken - (1) When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail :

Provided that such officer or Court, if he or it thinks fit, may, and shall, if such person is indigent and is unable to furnish surety, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond witho