Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRASAD, S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 24 YEARS,K versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRASAD, S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 24 YEARS,K v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE - Bail Appl No. 4415 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 13939 (24 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4415 of 2007()

1. PRASAD, S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 24 YEARS,K
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :24/07/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

B.A.No.4415 of 2007

Dated this the 24th day of July, 2007

ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. He faces allegations along with co-accused under the Kerala Abkari Act. On 27.02.07, all the 4 accused persons were allegedly found to keep in their possession 75 litres of arrack. On seeing the detecting party, accused 1 to 3 took to their heels and could not be arrested at the scene. A4 was arrested. Contemporaneous records like the seizure mahazar and the occurrence report reveal the complicity of the petitioner. Investigation is in progress. The 3rd accused has already been arrested. Accused 3 and 4 have been enlarged on bail also. Accused 1 and 2 have not been apprehended so far. The petitioner, the 2nd accused prays that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. He is sick. He is innocent. He is prepared to surrender before the learned Magistrate or the Investigating Officer and abide by any appropriate conditions, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. It is for the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. I do not find any features in this case, which would justify invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under B.A.No.4415 of 2007 2 Section 438 Cr.P.C. I have no reason to assume that the petitioner's application for regular bail shall not be considered by the learned Magistrate promptly and in accordance with law. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary.

3. This application for anticipatory bail is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate 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 and expeditiously.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


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.