Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUHAMMED FAIZAL, S/O. KUNHIKOYA versus STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MUHAMMED FAIZAL, S/O. KUNHIKOYA v. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE - Bail Appl No. 5043 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 16312 (22 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5043 of 2007()

1. MUHAMMED FAIZAL, S/O. KUNHIKOYA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :22/08/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 5043 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2007

O R D E R

Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces allegations under Section 21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner was found to keep in his possession 24 grams of brown sugar when he was intercepted on 22.7.07. The petitioner continues in custody from that date.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The allegations are totally false. Policemen had gone to the house of the petitioner and had wanted to ascertain the whereabouts of the petitioner. They were not satisfied with the explanation offered by the wife of the petitioner. She was allegedly manhandled. Seeing this the petitioner had come to the house. There was wordy altercation. On the basis of such animosity totally false and vexatious allegations are made against the petitioner. The petitioner has complained to superior officials and the Ministers concerned against such action of the police. In these circumstances the petitioner may be enlarged on bail, submits the counsel. B.A.No. 5043 of 2007 2

3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the allegations are found to be absolutely justified. The petitioner has a history of criminal antecedents. 100 grams of brown sugar was earlier found in his possession and crime was registered against him. He was enlarged on bail in that crime and it is while on bail that the present offence is allegedly committed by the petitioner. At any rate, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage. The quantity is neither commercial quantity nor small quantity. In a serious crime like this the Investigators may be given sufficient and reasonable time to complete the investigation, submits the Prosecutor.

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition made by the learned Prosecutor. I am satisfied, as rightly pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, that the Investigators are entitled for reasonable further time to complete the investigation.

5. This application is, in these circumstance, dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move the court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation, not at any rate, prior to B.A.No. 5043 of 2007 3 5.9.2007. The Investigators shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


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.