Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JINEESH @ JINAPPI, S/O.RAJAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JINEESH @ JINAPPI, S/O.RAJAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 5520 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 17199 (12 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5520 of 2007()

1. JINEESH @ JINAPPI, S/O.RAJAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIV NAMBISAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :12/09/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.Nos. 5520 & 5541 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 12th day of September, 2007

O R D E R

Second application for regular bail. The petitioners are 2nd and 6th accused in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 395 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 24.8.2006. The petitioners were arrested on 9.7.07 and 23.7.2007 respectively. Their applications for regular bail were dismissed earlier by separate orders dt. 21.8.07 in B.A.Nos. 5069 and 5078 of 2007. The said applications were dismissed with the observation that the petitioners can approach this Court for bail later, not prior to 4.9.2007. Accordingly the present applications have been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners pray that the petitioners may now be enlarged on bail.

2. The learned Prosecutor submits that the allegations are serious. The crime committed is grave. Investigation is not complete. In a serious crime like the instant one the investigators may be given reasonable further time to complete the investigation, submits the Prosecutor. B.A.Nos. 5520 & 5541 of 2007 2

3. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I have already adverted to facts in detail in the orders referred above. In these circumstances it is not necessary for me to refer to facts in any greater detail in this order. This order is to be read in continuation of the said orders. I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioners can be granted regular bail at this stage. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor and his submission that the Investigators may be given some further time to complete the investigation.

4. These applications are accordingly dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the petitioners shall be at liberty to move the court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation, not at any rate, prior to 26.9.2007. 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.