BIJU, S/O.MANUEL, AGED 27 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

BIJU, S/O.MANUEL, AGED 27 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 4006 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11971 (4 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4006 of 2007()

1. BIJU, S/O.MANUEL, AGED 27 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. MOHANAN, RESIDING AT KUNNUMPURAM,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :04/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 4006 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2007

O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. They face allegations, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners had trespassed into the residential compound of the defacto complainant and had unleashed an attack on him with dangerous weapons. Serious injuries have been suffered. Fracture has resulted. Investigation is in progress. The alleged incident took place on the night of 10.4.2007, submits the Prosecutor. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. False allegations are being raised against them. In these circumstances anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners, it is prayed.

3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. The allegations are serious. Grievous injury (fracture) has been suffered by the victim. Investigation is not complete. At this early stage, B.A.No. 4006 of 2007 2 there is no reason to invoke the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C., submits the Prosecutor.

4. I find merit in the opposition raised by the learned Prosecutor. The nature of injuries have been read over to me from the case diary. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am certainly of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners. This is an eminently fit case where the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course.

5. This application is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm 

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

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.