Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SIJU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SIJU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI v. STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 3647 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10520 (18 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3647 of 2007()

1. SIJU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI,
... Petitioner

2. SIBY,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :18/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

B.A.No.3647 of 2007

Dated this the 18th day of June, 2007

ORDER

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 respectively in a crime registered, inter alia, for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. That is the only offence shown in the F.I.R, it is submitted. The alleged incident took place on 31.05.2007. The F.I statement was lodged only on 07.06.07. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are totally false. There is a civil dispute. There was an incident on 31.05.2007. The police did not think it necessary to register an F.I.R on the basis of the said incident. The rival contestants were seen by the doctor. Long later on 07.06.07, a complaint has been filed, inter alia, alleging commission of the offence under Section 452 Cr.P.C. The petitioners apprehend that they may be arrested and subjected to unnecessary trauma. It is prayed that appropriate directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioners.

2. The powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C are to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional cases, in aid of justice. Such powers are not to be invoked as a matter of course. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrate and seek bail in the regular and ordinary course. I have no reason to B.A.No.3647 of 2007 2 assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners' application for bail in accordance with law, on merits and expeditiously. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not also consider the significance of the gap of 7 days in filing the F.I statement. It is for the learned Magistrate to consider the application on merits and pass appropriate orders.

3. In the result, this Bail Application is, dismissed, but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself.

4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


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.