Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.PRADEEPAN, S/O.NARAYANAN versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.PRADEEPAN, S/O.NARAYANAN v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER - Bail Appl No. 5794 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 915 (28 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5794 of 2006()

1. M.PRADEEPAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner

2. A.SHAIJU, S/O.M.V.KUNHIKANNAN,

3. K.V.PRAMOD, S/O.LATE GOVINDAN,

4. K.V.PRAVEN, S/O.KUNHANBU,

5. K.V.RAJESH, S/O.U.RAGHAVAN,

6. K.V.PREMAN, S/O.U.RAGHAVAN,

7. K.SUDHIR, S/O.P.NARAYANAN,

8. ANIL P.P., S/O.C.KRISHNAN,

Vs

1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

Dated :28/09/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

B.A. 5794/2006

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006

O R D E R

The second petitioner, Shaiju, had assaulted the brother of the defacto complainant on 5.9.2006 at night. Therefore, the latter was admitted in a private hospital. At about 10.00 p.m on the same night, nine persons had trespassed in the hospital and assaulted the defacto complainant, who was the bye-stander of his brother. Therefore, at the instance of the defacto complainant, crime No.296/2006 of Chandera Police Station was registered, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452 and 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Now the petitioners, accused 1 to 8 in the above crime, (though there were originally nine accused, during the investigation, eighth accused had been deleted and other accused are arrayed as accused 1 to 8) are before this Court, under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no crime had been registered by the first B.A.5794/2006 2 instance. However, the materials produced before me show that the brother of the defacto complainant in this crime, had sustained injuries and he was admitted in the hospital. The argument of the learned counsel, that the petitioners had visited the hospital at 10.00 p.m, cannot be accepted, at his stage.

3. In the above facts situation of the case, I direct the petitioners, accused 1 to 8, to surrender before the Investigating Officer, who is investigating crime No.296/2006 of Chandera Police Station, on 5.10.2006 between 9.30 a.m and 10.00 a.m.

4. The Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioners and thereafter, produce them before the Court below. The learned Magistrate shall allow the petitioners to be on bail, imposing such conditions, as are deemed necessary. The application is disposed of 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.