High Court Kerala High Court

K.Siddique @ Bismilla Siddique vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.Siddique @ Bismilla Siddique vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 817 of 2007()



1. K.SIDDIQUE @ BISMILLA SIDDIQUE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :14/02/2007

 O R D E R
                                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.


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


                                      B. A. No.817 of  2007


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


                                DATED: FEBRUARY 14, 2007





                                             O R D E R

Petitioner who is the 11th accused in Crime No.705/2000 of Kasaragod

Police Station for offences punishable under secs.143, 147, 148, 324, 427 and

153(A) read with sec.149 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner before the court

of C.J.M., Kasaragod, in C.C.No.499/2002, the case against him was split up

and re-filed as C.C.No.645/2006. Admittedly, non-bailable warrants of arrest

are pending against the petitioners. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case

of this nature so as to nullify the process issued by a court of competent

jurisdiction. If the petitioners have a contention that accused Nos.1, 5, 6, 8, 9

and 12 faced the trial in C.C.No.499/2002 and were acquitted after trial, that is a

matter which he can profitably raise before the magistrate concerned. There is

no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the concerned

magistrate and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before

the magistrate and files an application for regular bail within two weeks from

today, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same

day on which it is filed, after examining the contention of the petitioner that the

Bail A.No.817/2007 -:2:-

co-accused in the case have been acquitted after trial. Until such consideration,

non-bailable warrants of arrest, if any, pending against the petitioner shall not be

executed.

With the above observation this application is disposed of.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

mt/-