Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.V.NAZEER @ KANI, S/O.KUNHIMOIDU versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.V.NAZEER @ KANI, S/O.KUNHIMOIDU v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 4043 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 12163 (5 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4043 of 2007()

1. K.V.NAZEER @ KANI, S/O.KUNHIMOIDU,
... Petitioner

2. SALEEM, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 20 YEARS,

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :05/07/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

B.A.No.4043 of 2007

Dated this the 5th day of July, 2007

ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 and

2. Altogether there are 3 accused persons. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they had trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked the defacto complainant with sticks on account of prior animosity. The children of the defacto complainant intervened and they also allegedly sustained hurt. The alleged occurrence took place on 28.05.2007. Crime has been registered, inter alia, under Sections 452 and 324 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners raises various contentions. The incident did not take place inside the house, but took place in the courtyard of the house. In these circumstances, exaggerated and false allegations are raised against the petitioners to ensure that they would not get bail and will be obliged to remain in custody. The motive alleged is trivial - of trespass by a goat and destroying of the fence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that anticipatory bail may, in these circumstances, be granted to the B.A.No.4043 of 2007 2 petitioners. The application is opposed. There are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case, where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. They must then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider their applications for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

5. In the result, this bail application is, dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


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.