Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABY ALEX, AGED 40, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BABY ALEX, AGED 40, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU v. STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 3666 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10564 (19 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3666 of 2007()

1. BABY ALEX, AGED 40, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU,
... Petitioner

2. SATHEESAN, AGED 38, S/O.SURA,

3. SUNIL, AGED 32, S/O.SURA, PRANAVOM VEEDU

4. DEEPU KOSHI, AGED 21,

5. MRS.SISILY, AGED 50,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :19/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

= = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A.No. 3666 Of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 19th day of June, 2007

ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 to 5. They face allegations, inter alia, under Section 308 IPC. That is the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners. The alleged incident took place on 06.06.07. Crime has been registered. The investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations raised are totally unjustified. The parties are relatives. There is a civil suit between the parties. An order of injunction has been passed in favour of the petitioners. There is no worthwhile overt act, whatsoever, alleged against accused 2 to 5. The 5th accused is a widow aged about 50 years. The 4th accused is an Engineering student. Omnibus allegations have been raised against all the accused persons. In these circumstances, it is prayed that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioners. B.A.No. 3666 of 2007 2

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that, as against the 1st petitioner/accused, specific overt act is alleged. Subsequent report has been filed to include the allegation under Section 326 IPC also. In these circumstances, there is no justification in issuing directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioners. At any rate, as against the 1st accused, no such direction need be issued. I am satisfied that, in so far as, accused/petitioners 2 to 5 are concerned, directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be issued. In so far as 1st accused is concerned, he can be directed to appear before the learned Magistrate or before the Investigating Officer.

4. In the result, this application is allowed in part. This bail application is dismissed in so far as the 1st respondent is concerned and allowed in part in so far as the petitioners 2 to 5 are concerned.

i) The petitioners 2 to 5 shall surrender before the Learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 26.06.2007. They shall be released on regular bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. B.A.No. 3666 of 2007 3 ii) The petitioners 2 to 5 shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m on 27.06.2007 and 28.06.07 and thereafter they shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays, until further orders. iii) If the petitioners 2 to 5 do not surrender before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), all directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with them in accordance with law. iv) if the petitioners 2 to 5 were arrested prior to their surrender to the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released forthwith on their executing a bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause(i) above.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

sj


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.