Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARUN SHAH A.K., AGED 24 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ARUN SHAH A.K., AGED 24 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 1020 of 2007(A) [2007] RD-KL 5165 (12 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1020 of 2007(A)

1. ARUN SHAH A.K., AGED 24 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :12/03/2007

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1020 OF 2007 B ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dated this the 12th day of March, 2007

O R D E R

Petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No.37/07 of Chadayamangalam Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with section 149 IPC and section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even according to the F.I.Statement the limited role attributed to the petitioner is driving of the Tata Sumo vehicle in which accused Nos.2 to 7 were travelling and the petitioner is a M.B.A. Student at Dindigul.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that on the date of occurrence the petitioner was absent in the institute at Dindigul, where he is allegedly studying. The case of the prosecution is that on 5.2.2007 at about 6.30 p.m. the petitioner along with seven other accused persons entered into Silpa Bar at Ayoor and attacked the de facto complainant by throwing explosives and causing injuries on him.

5. Even assuming that the limited role attributed to the petitioner is only driving of the vehicle, he was facilitating accused Nos.2 to 7 armed with deadly weapons to enter the Bar and attack the de facto BA.1020/07 complainant. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. There is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and thereafter seek regular bail from the Magistrate concerned. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer on any day between 19.3.2007 and 21.3.2007 for the purpose of interrogation. The petitioner shall, thereafter, be produced on the same day before the concerned Magistrate, who shall consider and dispose of the application, if any, filed by the petitioner for regular bail, preferably on the same date on which it is filed. This application is disposed of as above.

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

aks


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.