Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.PRADEEP, S/O. PRABHAKARAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.PRADEEP, S/O. PRABHAKARAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 4142 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 12510 (9 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4142 of 2007()

1. P.PRADEEP, S/O. PRABHAKARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :09/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 4142 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 9th day of July, 2007

O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that job seekers were induced to part with money on the fraudulent promise that employment as Nurse will be secured abroad. A huge amount has been received from the defacto complainant. According to the defacto complainant such amounts were received on false misrepresentation. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is not in any way directly involved in the crime. The mere fact that he is employed in the firm which is alleged to have taken money may not expose the petitioner to any undeserved trauma of arrest and detention, submits the counsel.

3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the investigation is at an early stage. Valuable B.A.No. 4142 of 2007 2 indications convincingly point to the complicity of the accused. There are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C., submits the learned Prosecutor.

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

4. This application is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and applies for regular 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. (R. BASANT) tm Judge B.A.No. 4142 of 2007 3 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.