Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SIMON C. versus SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SIMON C. v. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Bail Appl No. 4085 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 12402 (6 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4085 of 2007()

1. SIMON C.,
... Petitioner

2. B.GEORGE,

Vs

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR

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.4085 of 2007

Dated this the 6th day of July 2007

O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners, son and father, face allegations inter alia under Section 308 read with 34 I.P.C. They are alleged to have trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and attacked him with dangerous weapons. The offence was allegedly committed on 23/6/2007. The F.I.R has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is ill and the second petitioner is a person aged about 65 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation under Section 308 I.P.C had been included with vexatious intent to detain the petitioners in custody for as long a period as possible. The de facto complainant has questionable antecedents, it is further submitted. In these circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor has taken me through the nature of the injuries suffered by the victim to point B.A.No.4085/07 2 out that it is not a case where Section 308 I.P.C is unjustifiably included by the investigator.

3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. I do not find any circumstances which would justify invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

3. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and apply 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.4085/07 3 B.A.No.4085/07 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.