Loading...

Abdul Salam vs State-Represented By Public … on 6 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Abdul Salam vs State-Represented By Public … on 6 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4554 of 2009()


1. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :06/10/2009

 O R D E R
                       K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                    ---------------------------
                     B.A. No. 4554 of 2009
                 ------------------------------------
             Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009

                            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.5 in C.R No.880/2005 of Kasaragod Police

Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 304 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that on 6/12/2005 at

3 A.M., the accused persons pelted stones towards the driver

of a tanker lorry. The 6th December was being observed as

“Babri Masjid Day”. On that day, some section of people would

observe hartal. On the ground that the lorry was being plied

on that day, the accused pelted stones. The driver of the lorry

lost control of the vehicle. The vehicle hit on a tree. As a result

of the injuries, the driver died.

4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of

the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the allegations

B.A. No. 4554/2009
2

levelled against the petitioner and other circumstances and also

taking note of the fact that the incident took place about 4 years

before, on 6/12/2005 and taking into account the fact that

several accused persons including the petitioner could not be

arrested, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information