Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEEPA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. OMANA versus STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DEEPA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. OMANA v. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY - Bail Appl No. 3881 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11689 (2 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3881 of 2007()

1. DEEPA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. OMANA,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :02/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

B.A.NO. 3881 OF 2007

Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007

ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. She was allegedly found to keep in her possession 10 litres of arrack. Altogether, there were three accused persons. They had a total quantity of 30 litres of arrack with them. The 1st accused is a man. 2nd and 3rd accused are women. All the three were intercepted. But as there was no woman official in the party, the petitioner and the 3rd accused could not be arrested. The 1st accused was arrested at the spot on 25/5/07. The petitioner and the co- accused (3rd accused) were not arrested. The petitioner apprehends arrest at any moment.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner is a B.A.NO. 3881 OF 2007 -: 2 :- woman aged about 25 years. Unjustified arrest and incarceration would work out great prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is prayed that directions under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that it was a clear case of detection of the offence by the officials. The petitioner and the co-accused (3rd accused) could not be arrested as no woman official was available. The seizure mahazar and occurrence report clearly show the complicity of the petitioner. There are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C., submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I am satisfied, is certainly a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. She must then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. There are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C.

5. In the result, this application is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating B.A.NO. 3881 OF 2007 -: 3 :- Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 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.