IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
MERCY SUJA SANTHOSH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 11503 OF 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail cancellation without proper hearing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner appeared after stay order. (Para 3) |
| 3. court considers legal merits and procedural errors. (Para 4 , 5) |
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.920 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Alappuzha, ('Trial Court', in short), which has been filed by the 2nd respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The petitioner asserts that she was enlarged on bail on 05.10.2024. She is residing in Ernakulam. She was appearing before the Trial Court regularly. There was no sitting before the Trial Court on three posting dates. Due to the petitioner's physical ailment, she could not appear before the Trial Court on 14.11.2025. Surprisingly, on the said date, the Trial Court as per Annexure A2 order, cancelled the bail bond and issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, without affording an opportunity of being heard. Annexure A2 order is illegal and erroneous. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
2. When the Crl.M.C. came up for consideration on
18.12.2025, this Court stayed coercive proceedings against the petitioner, subject to the condition that she appears before the Trial Court on 19.12.2025 and get her plea recorded.
3. Consequent to the said order, as discernible from Annexure A3 proceedings, the petitioner surrendered before the Trial Court and her plea has been recorded. The case now stands posted for evidence of the complainant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. On consideration of the facts and the materials on record, especially the fact that the petitioner's plea has already been recorded, I am of the definite view that Annexure A2 order cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner, and issuing notice to her sureties is erroneous and unjustifiable. It is to be remembered that there was no sitting before the Trial Court on three consecutive posting dates and, thereafter, the case was posted to 14.11.2025, on which date Annexure A2 order was passed. Moreover, pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2025, the petitioner has appeared before the Trial Court and her plea has been recorded.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C.
by setting aside Annexure A2 order and permitting the petitioner to contest the complaint on the basis of the original bail bond executed by her and the sureties at the time the petitioner was enlarged on bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.