Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ALBERT, AGED 32 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ALBERT, AGED 32 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - Bail Appl No. 5462 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 17100 (11 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5462 of 2007()

1. ALBERT, AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. JOSEMON, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O ANTONY,

3. JENSON, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH,

4. RAJESH, AGED 28 YEARS,

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.P.T.SEBASTIAN TOMY

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :11/09/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

B.A.No.5462 of 2007

Dated this the 11th day of September 2007

O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1,3,4 and 5. Altogether there are five accused persons. Second accused had already been arrested and enlarged on bail. The petitioners face allegations under Section 326 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons, five in number, went to the de facto complainant in two vehicles and unleashed an attack on the de facto complainant and his friends who tried to intervene. A dangerous weapon - idikkatta was used by the miscreants. One of the victims had suffered loss of teeth. An allegation is raised inter alia under Section 326 I.P.C. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. He prays that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. All the available indications point unmistakably to the guilty of the accused persons under Section 326 I.P.C. There B.A.No.5462/07 2 are no circumstances justifying of warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. This is a fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no features in this case which would justify the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course.

4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and apply 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.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.5462/07 3 B.A.No.5462/07 4

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.