Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRASANNAN, S/O.MANNAVAN, AGED 44 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRASANNAN, S/O.MANNAVAN, AGED 44 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 2636 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 16016 (18 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2636 of 2007()

1. PRASANNAN, S/O.MANNAVAN, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :18/08/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.2636 of 2007

Dated this the 18th day of August, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The alleged incident took place on 15.04.02. The petitioner was not arrested in the course of investigation. Investigation is still pending, it is submitted. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He is not responsible for his not being arrested earlier. He had no idea of the pendency of such a crime registered against him.

2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate. 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 appropriate directions may be issued under Section 438 and/or 482 Cr.P.C.

3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [A.I.R 2003 S.C 4662], it is well settled that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in favour of an accused who apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued in a pending proceedings. But even for that, sufficient and satisfactory reasons Crl.M.C.No.2636 of 2007 2 must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I do not find any such reasons in this case.

4. It is for the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. I find no reason in this case to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C or the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail.

5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe 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/- Crl.M.C.No.2636 of 2007 3


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.