High Court Kerala High Court

Georgekutty vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2006

Kerala High Court
Georgekutty vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7101 of 2006()


1. GEORGEKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.ARUN RAJ

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :05/12/2006

 O R D E R
                              V.RAMKUMAR, J.

                    -------------------------------------

                          B.A.No. 7101 OF  2006

        -----------------------------------------------------------

            DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006


                                  O R D E R

Petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No.200/92 of

Ezhukone Police Station for offences punishable under sections

120B, 457, 380 and 411 IPC, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Admittedly, due to the non-appearance of the

petitioner before the trial court, viz; J.F.C.M., Punalur, the case

against him was split up and re-filed and subsequently

transferred to the long pending register, where it has been

numbered as L.P.No.30/02. Admittedly, non-bailable warrant of

arrest is pending against the petitioner. Anticipatory bail cannot

be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent

jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioner should not

surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail.

Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate

concerned and files an application for regular bail, within 10 days

from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of,

preferably on the same date on which it is filed after considering

BA.7101/06

Page numbers

the petitioner’s explanation for his previous non-appearance and

also the contention that the co-accused in the case have been

acquitted.

With this observation, this petition is dismissed.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

dsn