Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SIJU versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SIJU v. STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 3984 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 280 (18 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3984 of 2006()

1. SIJU, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 23 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.VINOD

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

Dated :18/07/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

B.A.Nos. 3984/06 & 4224/06

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner in both the above bail applications are one and the same person. In B.A.3984/06, he is the first accused, having committed the offence, punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 395 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, in crime NO.370/2005 of Puthukkad police station. The arrest of the petitioner was recorded on 17.5.2006, as he was already arrested, in crime No.285/2006 of Chengamanad Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as well as under Section 25 of the Arms Act, wherein the petitioner is the second accused, for the release of which, the bail application No.4224/2006 is preferred.

2. I heard both the bail applications together. I had gone through the materials that are placed before me. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the B.A.3984/06 & 4224/06 2 petitioner is a known criminal of the area and he is an expert in country bomb making and he is also involved in number of other cases, under the Explosives Act and Explosives Substances Act. The prosecution therefore, submit that the release of the petitioner would be dangerous to the society as well and he may commit the same offence, which he had already committed in the area, on his release on bail.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may not be indefinitely kept in the custody when the investigation being completed, particularly in crime No.370/2005 of Puthukkad Police station, having registered in the year 2005.

4. Considering the materials on record, as submitted, I direct the prosecution to complete the investigation both in crime Nos.370/05 of Puthukkad Police Station as well as crime No.284/2006 of Chengamanadu Police Station, at the earliest, and file the final report in any case within two months from the date B.A.3984/06 & 4224/06 3 of receipt of this order. If any other cases are pending against the petitioners, it should also be expeditely investigated and the final reports filed, so that the petitioner is not kept in the jail, without the legal proceedings, being initiated against him. Both the applications are dismissed. 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.