High Court Kerala High Court

Rajeesh vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 25 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rajeesh vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 25 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 255 of 2010()


1. RAJEESH, S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :25/03/2010

 O R D E R
                       K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                    ---------------------------
                      B.A. No. 255 of 2010
                  -------------------------------
             Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010

                            O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused

No.7 in Crime No.69/2008 of Kainady Police Station, Kottayam.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 323 and 324 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

12/03/2010, the following order was passed;

“After having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am

of the view that before disposing of the Bail

Application, an opportunity should be given to the

petitioner to appear before the investigating officer.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the

petitioner to appear before the investigating officer

at 9 A.M. on 18th and 19th March, 2010.

Post on 25/03/2010.

B.A. No. 255/2010
2

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

that the petitioner will not be arrested until further

orders in connection with Crime No.69 of 2008 of

Kainady Police Station, Kottayam.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the

order before the investigating officer.”

4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that

the petitioner has not complied with the direction contained in

the order dated 12/03/2010.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not

complied with the direction contained in the order dated

12/3/2010, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to

the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm