Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRAMOD BHASI, AGED 28 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRAMOD BHASI, AGED 28 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY - Bail Appl No. 4342 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 13415 (18 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4342 of 2007()

1. PRAMOD BHASI, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :18/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 4342 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 18th day of July, 2007

O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. The crux of the allegations is that on account of prior animosity the accused persons went in a motor cycle in search of the victim. The first accused allegedly got down from the motor cycle and planted a stab injury with a dangerous knife on the vital parts of the victim. After the incident both the accused allegedly sped away from the scene of the crime. In the F.I.R. the petitioner is not named. After the arrest and interrogation of the first accused, the petitioner has been brought on the array of accused. Investigation is in progress. Crime No.132 of 2007 of Mannar Police Station is registered against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not available in the vehicle at all. He further points out that there is no overt culpable act even alleged against the petitioner. In these circumstances anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is submitted. B.A.No. 4342 of 2007 2

3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. The available indications point to the complicity of the petitioner. He submits that there are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner.

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am satisfied that this is not a fit case where the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can or deserves to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner must appear before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course.

5. This application is hence 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) 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.