Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S. PRADEEP, S/O. SASI versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S. PRADEEP, S/O. SASI v. STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 4683 of 2007(S) [2007] RD-KL 14818 (2 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4683 of 2007(S)

1. S. PRADEEP, S/O. SASI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :02/08/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

B.A.No. 4683 of 2007

Dated this the 2nd day of August 2007

O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations inter alia under Section 435 I.P.C and Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner was not available for arrest. Non-bailable warrant is being issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His failure/omission to appear before the learned Magistrate was not wilful; but was on account of reasons beyond his control. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. He shall co-operate with the court for the expeditious disposal of the case. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies for bail. B.A.No.4683/07 2

2. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662], it is well settled that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in favour of the accused who apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued in a pending proceedings. But even for that, sufficient and satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I find absolutely no reason to invoke the powers under Section 438/482 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrate or the investigating officer having jurisdiction and seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course.

3. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.4683/07 3 B.A.No.4683/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

B.A.No.4683/07 5 21ST DAY OF MAY2007

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr B.A.No.4683/07 6

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.