Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MURUKAN, S/O. PAZHANI ACHARI versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MURUKAN, S/O. PAZHANI ACHARI v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 3908 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 12364 (6 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3908 of 2007()

1. MURUKAN, S/O. PAZHANI ACHARI,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :06/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 3908 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 6th day of July, 2007

O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. One Naseem was arrested by the Pampady police under suspicious circumstances. He was interrogated. A gold chain was recovered from him. Crime No. 135 of 2007 was registered at the Pampady police station. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the said Naseem along with the petitioner herein had committed certain crimes. They are involved in Crime Nos. 147 of 2007 and 189 of 2007 of Koratty police station. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Merely on the basis of the alleged confession of one Naseem, with whom the petitioner has some acquaintance, the petitioner is sought to be proceeded against. He is a person leading a respectable life. Arrest and incarceration in prison is likely to affect the petitioner considerably. In these circumstances it is prayed that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioner.

2. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that crucial material is available with the Investigator about the B.A.No. 3908 of 2007 2 involvement and complicity of the petitioner on the basis of the interrogation of the co-accused. The petitioner has to be interrogated and arrested, if necessary. The available indications point to the complicity of the petitioner. Effective and efficient investigation will not be possible if the petitioner were permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail at this early stage. The very nature of the crime suggests the need and importance of effective interrogation of the petitioner. In these circumstances anticipatory bail may not be granted, prays the Prosecutor.

3. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstance justifying the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is an eminently fit case where petitioner must appear before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course.

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


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.