Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PAIKKATTCHALI SAIDALAVI, S/O versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PAIKKATTCHALI SAIDALAVI, S/O v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 4374 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 13536 (19 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4374 of 2007()

1. PAIKKATTCHALI SAIDALAVI, S/O.
... Petitioner

2. NAGERI NAJEEBULLA, S/O. ABOOBACKER,

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :19/07/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

B.A.No.4374 of 2007

Dated this the 19th day of July 2007

O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a crime registered under Sections 307 and 353 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that enraged by the conduct of the de facto complainant, who in his capacity as village officer, was attempting to interpose the commission of an offence - illicit transportation of sand, the petitioners obstructed him in the discharge of his duties and pushed him into the river where strong current was flowing, with an intention to cause his death. The alleged incident took place on 26/6/2007. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Totally false and vexatious allegations are being raised. There was an exchange of words and the official, who had questionable motives in his attempt to seize a boat, had accidentally fallen into the water, it is submitted. B.A.No.4374/07 2

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The available indications point to the guilt of the accused. There is absolutely no justification to invoke the equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C now, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

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

5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate 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.4374/07 3 B.A.No.4374/07 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.