High Court Kerala High Court

Noushad vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 3 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
Noushad vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 3 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4713 of 2007()


1. NOUSHAD, S/O. SUBAIR KUNJU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :03/08/2007

 O R D E R
                           R.BASANT, J.
                        ----------------------
                        B.A.No.4713 of 2007
                    ----------------------------------------
             Dated this the 3rd day of August 2007


                               O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the

second accused. He, along with the co-accused, faces allegations

inter alia under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. The accused

persons were allegedly members of an unlawful assembly of

persons who in prosecution of their common object allegedly

attacked the victim and caused serious injuries to the victim.

Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends arrest at

any moment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the sixth accused had come before this court and sought

directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Another Bench of this

court had permitted that petitioner/sixth accused to surrender

before the investigating officer . He was arrested and produced

and has already been enlarged on bail. The first accused has

also been enlarged on bail, it is submitted.

2. The application is opposed by the learned Public

Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is

B.A.No.4713/07 2

no circumstance justifying the invocation of jurisdiction under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I

find merit in such opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I

find no features in this case which would justify the invocation of

powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This is a fit case where

the petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrate

having jurisdiction or the investigating officer and seek regular

bail in the normal and ordinary course.

3. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to

say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer

or the learned Magistrate and applies 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.4713/07    3

B.A.No.4713/07    4

       R.BASANT, J.




         CRL.M.CNo.




            ORDER




21ST DAY OF MAY2007