Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NIDUMBRATH BASHEER, S/O.POKKAR HAJI versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NIDUMBRATH BASHEER, S/O.POKKAR HAJI v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - Bail Appl No. 1240 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 4521 (1 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1240 of 2007()

1. NIDUMBRATH BASHEER, S/O.POKKAR HAJI,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :01/03/2007

O R D E R

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

Bail Application No. 1240/2007 Dated this 1st day of March, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No.274/2004 of Chevayoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC read with Section 34 IPC, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Consequent on the non appearance of the petitioner during the trial of the case, which is now pending before the J.F.C.M-I, Kozhikode, as C.C.No.114/2005, his bail was cancelled and non bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against him.

3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction. But at the same time, the petitioner should be able to surrender before the Magistrate concerned and offer his explanation for his non appearance on the previous day especially when it is submitted that the only witness examined on the previous day was PW1, who does not disputed the identity of the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court and file an application for regular bail B.A.1240/2007 2 which shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed, after examining the explanation offered by the petitioner for his previous non appearance and also after considering the fact whether the petitioner could have been represented by his counsel as there was no question of identity of the petitioner while PW1 was being examined. The application is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR,

JUDGE

mrcs


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.