Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MURUKAN.R., S/O.RAMAR versus STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MURUKAN.R., S/O.RAMAR v. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC - Bail Appl No. 134 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 871 (11 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 134 of 2007()

1. MURUKAN.R., S/O.RAMAR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.A.C.DEVY

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :11/01/2007

O R D E R

V.Ramkumar, J.


========================
B.A.No.134 of 2007
========================

Dated this the 11th day of January, 2007.

ORDER

Petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.167 of 2006 of Vythiri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 452, 376 and 506(1) I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

3. The alleged occurrence took place on 20.9.2006 at 3.30 p.m. when the petitioner is alleged to have ravished the de facto complainant aged 22 years after trespassing into her room in the line building.

4. It is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 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 custodial interrogation and thereafter to have his regular bail application considered by the Magistrate. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer on any day between 15.1.2007 and 17.1.2007 for the purpose of custodial BA 134/07 -: 2 :- interrogation. The petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction on the same day. The Magistrate 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. With this direction, this petition is disposed of. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ess 11/1


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.