Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHNADAS @ MOTTA, S/O.SETHUMADHAVAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KRISHNADAS @ MOTTA, S/O.SETHUMADHAVAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 3676 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10607 (19 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3676 of 2007()

1. KRISHNADAS @ MOTTA, S/O.SETHUMADHAVAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN

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.3676 of 2007

Dated this the 19th day of June 2007

O R D E R

Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces allegations under Section 379 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that a car belonging to the defacto complainant was thieved on 09/03/2007 from his possession. The crime was registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner was arrested in another case. That was an offence under the Abkari Act. The thieved car was seized from the possession of the petitioner. On coming to know of this case, a production warrant was issued and the petitioner was remanded to custody in this case on 22/4/2007. The petitioner continues in custody from that date.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. It is prayed that the petitioner may now be enlarged on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not complete. Release of the petitioner at this early stage would B.A.No.3676/07 2 hamper the investigation. The petition may be dismissed, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the nature of the allegations and the sequence of events, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to enlargement on bail at this early stage. The police, in a case like this, must certainly be given reasonable further time to complete the investigation.

4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. However, I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim release on bail by default if the final report is not filed within the period stipulated under Section 167 Cr.P.C.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.3676/07 3 B.A.No.3676/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007


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.