Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LATHEEF P.P., AGED 33 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


LATHEEF P.P., AGED 33 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 6056 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 1050 (11 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 6056 of 2006()

1. LATHEEF P.P., AGED 33 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :11/10/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

B.A. 6056/2006

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court, under Section 438 Cr.P.C, as he is accused of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and also under Section 3 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, in crime No.165/2006 of Varantharappilly Police Station.

2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, who is an accused in another case under the Explosives Substances Act, was in possession of country made local firearm and shot at the defacto complainant, on the allegation that the defacto complainant had trespassed into the property and collected crump rubber pieces from the collecting vessel, fitted to the rubber tree.

3. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a handicaped person, as his lower portion, below the elbow of the right hand, is amputed and he is having fifty percent of disability. It is therefore, B.A.6056/2006 2 submitted that the allegations, made against him, are false.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the giving of an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The materials that are placed from the C.D file also show that the petitioner is having interest in handling firearms and using explosive substances. Of course, it is for the petitioner to disprove the same during the trial.

5. In the above facts situation, I am not inclined to grant a pre-arrest order, under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

6. The petitioner may work out his own remedy, according to the law. The application is dismissed as above. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.