High Court Kerala High Court

Midhun vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Midhun vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6147 of 2009()


1. MIDHUN, S/O.DEVADAS, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.K.SUNIL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :10/12/2009

 O R D E R
                        K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                  ---------------------------------------------
                         B.A.No.6147 of 2009
                  ---------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009


                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory

bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

apprehending arrest in Crime No.518 of 2009 of Cantonment

Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 420 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 4th

December, 2009 the following order was passed:

“The de facto complainant is represented by

the counsel. It is submitted by the counsel that

the petitioner is absconding and that he intends

to go abroad to avoid the arrest and to avoid the

appearance before the court. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has

not received any instructions from his client for

the last two weeks.

Hence, the interim direction is hereby

vacated. The learned counsel for the petitioner

shall get instructions from the petitioner and

disclose as to whether the petitioner is available

BA No.6147/2009 2

in the State and if so, where.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

he has not received any instructions from the petitioner and the

petitioner is out of circulation.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get

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
csl