Loading...

K.Soman vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.Soman vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3833 of 2008()


1. K.SOMAN, S/O.KUNJURAMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

2. S.I. OF POLICE, PUNALUR

                For Petitioner  :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :23/06/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.

                  -----------------------------------------
                        B.A.No. 3833 of 2008
                  -----------------------------------------

              Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008

                               O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324 and 308 of

Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has allegedly inflicted injury on

the defacto complainant and committed the offences and for the

commission of offence he had used a chopper.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner

is an employee in the B.S.N.L and he is a law abiding person. He

has not committed any offence as alleged. The defacto complainant

and others came to him and an assault occurred between them in

connection with the property. The petitioner resisted disposal of a

property where his uncle was cremated. But, the defacto

complainant alleged that the property belonged to the maid servant

claiming herself to be the adopted daughter of the deceased uncle.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the uncle died

intestate. This is a falsely foisted case to grab the property.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that as many as three incised wounds were sustained by

BA.3833/08 2

the defacto complainant and a weapon was also used and it is to be

recovered and hence, petitioner’s presence would be required for

interrogation and recovery, it is submitted.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in a case where

recovery is to be effected and the petitioner is required for

interrogation, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail.

This petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

vgs.

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Your email address will not be published.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