Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SYAM, AGED 26 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SYAM, AGED 26 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 5268 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 16975 (7 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5268 of 2007()

1. SYAM, AGED 26 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. LIJU, S/O.NADUMURY SIVARAMAN,

3. KANNAN @ SHIBIN,

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :07/09/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

B.A.Nos.5268 & 5345 of 2007

Dated this the 7th day of September 2007

O R D E R

These applications are filed by the petitioners for anticipatory bail. They are accused 1,2,4 and 10 in a crime registered inter alia under Section 452 read with 349 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

2. The crux of the allegations raised in the crime is that an unlawful assembly of persons of which the persons were members had trespassed into the E.M.S Memorial Reading Room at Athani, Kodungalloor and indulged in indiscriminate resort to violence and destruction. The crime is registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. It is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the B.A.No.5268/07 2 materials collected do point to the complicity of the petitioners in the crime. There are no circumstances warranting or justifying the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to discern any features in this case which would justify invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course.

5. In the result, these petitions are dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.5268/07 3 B.A.No.5268/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007


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.