Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KANNAN, SON OF KRISHNAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KANNAN, SON OF KRISHNAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - Bail Appl No. 4744 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 15010 (6 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4744 of 2007()

1. KANNAN, SON OF KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :06/08/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

= = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A.No. 4744 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 6th day of August, 2007

ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 3rd accused. He faces allegations under the Arms Act. It is alleged that on receipt of a reliable information, when the Police party went to the scene of occurrence, the petitioner herein who allegedly has questionable criminal past took to his heels and could not be apprehended. He was allegedly involved in an attempt to hand over an unlicensed pistol to accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were arrested at that moment. Co-accused 1 and 2 were arrested on 03.06.07. They were enlarged on bail as per order dated 28.6.07 in B.A.No.3895/07. The petitioner has not been apprehended so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Totally false allegations are raised, he submits.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The petitioner is named in the FIR itself indicating the complicity of the petitioner. There is absolutely no circumstance justifying invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No.4744 of 2007 2

3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to agree that there is merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. There are no features suggesting the need for invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This is an eminently fit case where the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and seek bail in the regular and ordinary course. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same.

4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner appears before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail,after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

sj /TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE


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.