Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJESH @ DEEPU, S/O RAJENDRAN versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJESH @ DEEPU, S/O RAJENDRAN v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 4087 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 12386 (6 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4087 of 2007()

1. RAJESH @ DEEPU, S/O RAJENDRAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR

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.4087 of 2007

Dated this the 6th day of July 2007

O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, faces allegations inter alia under Section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. The petitioner is the only one, who alleged to have wielded the dangerous weapons and inflicted the grievous injury. The grievous injury suffered is a loss of tooth. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. All the co-accused (A2 to A5) have already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, prays that directions under Section 438 cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner herein also.

3. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the mere fact that the co-accused have been granted bail, cannot, ipso facto be a reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner alone is alleged to have wielded the weapons. In the counter case, allegations under Section 326 I.P.C has been B.A.No.4087/07 2 raised. Weapon of offence has not been recovered and if the petitioner is not available for close and thorough interrogation, the chance of recovering the weapon will be remote and that would affect the credibility of the prosecution case. In the interests of proper investigation, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. He may be directed to appear before the investigating officer and then seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am not satisfied that this is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

5. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating 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 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.4087/07 3 B.A.No.4087/07 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.