Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BYJU P.G. versus SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BYJU P.G. v. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Bail Appl No. 4040 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 283 (19 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4040 of 2006()

1. BYJU.P.G., S/O.P.M.GANGADHARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent

2. MRS.SITHARA PARAMBATH,

For Petitioner :SRI.VENKATAKRISHNAN (SR.)

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :19/07/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

B.A. 4040/2006

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with the crime registered against himself and his wife, the second respondent, which originated from a fued between them as well as other members of the family. The petitioner is working in United States of America. He is expected to arrive within a few days. Because of the influence that the second respondent and her family members exert allegedly on the police as well as on the other burocratic persons, the counsel submit that in order to somehow force the petitioner to settle the matter between the parties, the said influence may be used against the petitioner. Hence the prayer for an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the police so far had not registered any crime involving the petitioner in Vadakara police Station or to the knowledge of the Cr.P.C.4040/2006 2 prosecution, in any other station.

3. Section 438 Cr.P.C. could be restored to only when the person is accused of a non bailable offence, and he reasonably apprehends the arrest in that case, and then the Court can pass an order under that Section. In such circumstances, when the prosecution submits that there is no case registered, I find that there is no reason to accept the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, at this stage.

4. However, I make it clear that if the petitioner is required to answer any petition or complaint that had been filed by any one, including his wife, the second respondent, the police officer shall issue notice to the petitioner, under Section 160 Cr.P.C. And in such event, the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer, and answer the query. The application is dismissed as above. Hand over the order. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs Cr.P.C.4040/2006 3


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.