Personal liberty must be safeguarded; judicial discretion is essential in bail matters to prevent unjust remands.

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).

2. The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.454/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Special Court) for Trial of cases U/S.138, NIACT (Temporary), Kozhikode. Above case is filed against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act . It is submitted that the petitioner was not able to appear before the lower court and consequently, a warrant is issued to the petitioner. The petitioner apprehend that, if he surrendered before the court below, the bail application will not be considered and he will be remanded.

3. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the jurisdictional court and if he surrender before the jurisdictional court, jurisdictional court may remand them without considering their bail application.

4. The Public Prosecutor submitted that no such apprehension is necessary and this court may not pass any direction to the lower court to release the petitioner on bail and that is a matter to be decided by the trial court.

5. This court in Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi v.

State of Kerala and another ( 2009 (3) KHC 471 ) relied on the dictum laid down by another learned Single Judge in Biju S. Praveen v. State of Kerala and Another (2007 (2) KLT 280) considered this point. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Vineeth Somarajan's case (supra).

“14. The apprehension of the petitioner is that if he appears before the Trial Court, he would be remanded to judicial custody. In Biju v. State of Kerala, 2007 KHC 3436 : 2007 (2) KLT 280 : 2007 (1) KLJ 713 : ILR 2007 (2) Ker. 26 : 2007 (1) KLD 486, Justice A. K. Basheer, after noticing the practice that is being followed by some learned Magistrates (vide paragraph 16) held at paragraph 18 thus: '18. As mentioned earlier, Criminal Courts should always be careful while passing orders on bail applications which in effect deal with personal liberty. In cases where the Court decides to send an accused to custody pending trial, it must be ensured that the Court applies its mind judicially and judiciously with particular reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere fact that the accused had failed to respond to a summons or that the Court had to issue non bailable warrant to compel his presence will not ipso facto empower the Criminal Court to remand the accused to custody as a punitive measure when he appears before the Court on his own volition or is produced in execution of the warrant. The bail application that may be moved on his behalf has to be considered and orders should be passed on the same day itself since personal liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed in a whimsical or disdainful manner.' I am in respectful agreement with the dictum laid down in Biju v. State of Kerala.”

6. In the light of the above dictum laid down by this court, I think the apprehension of the petitioner that the jurisdictional court will remand the accused without application of mind is unnecessary. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of with the following directions:

1) The petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional court within three weeks from today. If an application for bail with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned is filed at the time of surrender by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, ideally on the date of surrender itself.

2) In order to enable the petitioner to appear before the court below, coercive proceedings pending against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks.