Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.V.KUNHI RAMAN, AGED 45 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.V.KUNHI RAMAN, AGED 45 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 3692 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10554 (19 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3692 of 2007()

1. A.V.KUNHI RAMAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :19/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

B.A.No.3692 of 2007

Dated this the 19th day of June, 2007

ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under Section 308 I.P.C (and strangely not 307 I.P.C). The crux of the allegations is that with the intention of causing death of the defacto complainant, the petitioner fired a shot from his pistol at the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant suffered gun shot injury. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are totally false. There is bitter animosity between the complainant and the accused and the complainant has invented fanciful allegations to falsely implicate the petitioner. In the F.I statement, there is no specific allegation even of a pistol being used to commit the offence. In these circumstances, directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations are serious. The case diary reveals satisfactory materials to support the allegations raised. Though in the F.I statement, there is no specific B.A.No.3692 of 2007 2 reference to a fire arm, a total reading of the F.I statement must convey that a fire arm was used for the commission of the offence. Custodial interrogation is essential. Recovery of the weapon is absolutely necessary. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor .

4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion or expression of opinion on the acceptability of the allegations and the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded at all to hold that this is a fit case where directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C can or ought to be issued. The petitioner must follow the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing/surrendering before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. He must then seek bail in the ordinary course.

5. In the result, this application is, dismissed with the above observations.

(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.