Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAMMED SALI, S/O ABDULLA MOULAVI versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MOHAMMED SALI, S/O ABDULLA MOULAVI v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - Bail Appl No. 2177 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 7940 (20 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 2177 of 2007()

1. MOHAMMED SALI, S/O ABDULLA MOULAVI,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :20/04/2007

O R D E R

K.T.SANKARAN, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.NO.2177 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 20th day of April, 2007

ORDER

This is an application for bail filed by the second accused in S.C.No.436/06 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 449, 324, 326, 307, 302, 427, 201, 120B r/w Section 149 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested on 29.3.2006 and he is in judicial custody. It is stated that some of the accused have been granted bail. The petitioner applied for bail before this court in B.A.1321/07, which was dismissed by Annexure I order dated 14.3.2007. In Annexure I order this court took note of the facts and circumstances of the case in detail and also noticed that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.55/06 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station, Crime No.23/06 of Poochattil Police Station, Crime No.49 of Edakkad Police Station and Crime No.77/06 of Hill Palace Police Station. In Annexure A1 order, this court B.A.NO.2177 OF 2007 noticed that some of the accused persons who were granted bail have absconded and that there are instances of the prosecution witnesses being threatened by some of the accused persons.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the bail application submitted by accused No.11 as Bail Application No.4198/06 was disposed of by Annexure A2 order dated 20th July, 2006 wherein this court directed the learned Magistrate to commit the case within one month to the Sessions Court and also directed the Sessions Court to dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of records. The counsel for the petitioner submits that though the case was posted for trial to 22.2.2007, a report was filed by the Public Prosecutor on 21.2.2007 stating that the State wanted to appoint a Special Prosecutor in the case and seeking adjournment on that ground. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the request made by the Public Prosecutor and issued stop memo to the witnesses to whom summons were already issued. The counsel for the petitioner submits that only because of the laches on the part of the Government, a Special Prosecutor was not appointed B.A.NO.2177 OF 2007 which resulted in the case being adjourned from time to time. Now, the case is posted to 23.5.2007. He added that the case is posted to 23.5.2007 not for the examination of witnesses but it is only a formal posting.

3. Sri.P.G.Thampi, Director General of Prosecution submits that there are some delay and laches on the part of the Government in the case of appointment of the Special Prosecutor but that is not a ground for enlarging the second accused/petitioner on bail as he is involved in several other cases. It is submitted that release of the petitioner would be against the interests of the general public and his presence in the society would be detrimental to the peace in the locality.

4. Taking note of the fact that the case has reached at the final stage, that some of the accused have absconded and that there are allegations of severe threat from some of the accused to the prosecution witnesses, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. It is true that petitioner is undergoing detention from 29.3.2006. If the B.A.NO.2177 OF 2007 learned Sessions Judge has not complied with the directions issued by this court, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for redressal of his grievance but that by itself is not a ground for granting bail to the petitioner. I do not find any ground to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Director General of Prosecution submits that he will do all that is necessary for the early disposal of the case. He ensures that the prosecution will co-operate with the court to enable the court to schedule the case for trial at the earliest. This submission is recorded. The learned Sessions Judge shall comply with the directions already issued by this court and also shall make every endeavour to dispose of case at the earliest. Bail application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN)

JUDGE

jes


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.