Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.BABU, AGED 57 YEARS versus THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.BABU, AGED 57 YEARS v. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE - Bail Appl No. 3880 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11326 (27 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3880 of 2007()

1. A.BABU, AGED 57 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. S.RAMANUJAM AGED 48 YEARS,

3. V.THULASI ACHARY, AGED 57 YEARS,

4. K.NELLAI KUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS,

5. P.JANARDHANAN, AGED 52 YEARS,

6. S.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS,

7. G.GOPKUMAR, AGED 62 YEARS,

8. G.SATHEESH @ SWAMINATHAN, AGED 36 YEARS,

9. S.AYYAPPAN, AGED 62 YEARS,

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :27/06/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

B.A.NO. 3880 OF 2007

Dated this the 27th day of June, 2007

ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations, inter alia, under Secs.332 and 353 read with Sec.149 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations is that on 5/3/07, while a sales tax raid was conducted in the premises of a jewellery at Kollam, the petitioners along with the 1st accused, who is the President of the Kollam Merchants' Association, allegedly obstructed and deterred the Sales Tax Officer from discharging his official duty. He was allegedly fisted on the nose.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They are not named in the F.I.R. The 1st accused alone is named in the F.I.R. In favour of the 1st accused, though his application for B.A.NO. 3880 OF 2007 -: 2 :- anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court as per order dated 4/4/07, there was a direction that he can surrender before the Investigating Officer. It is prayed that directions under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioners who are not even named in the F.I.R.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. There are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C., submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Not naming the petitioners in the F.I.R. cannot be reckoned as a sufficient reason in the facts and circumstances of this case to justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. But, certainly the petitioners shall be entitled to surrender before the learned Magistrate or the Investigating Officer and then seek bail in the regular and ordinary course. Needless to say, the petitioners' applications for regular bail, after such surrender, must be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law, on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself.

5. With the above observations, this Bail Application is B.A.NO. 3880 OF 2007 -: 3 :- dismissed.

6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


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.