Loading...

Prakash Kurup vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 27 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Prakash Kurup vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 27 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2981 of 2010()


1. PRAKASH KURUP, AGED 53 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :27/05/2010

 O R D E R
                              K. HEMA, J.

                ---------------------------------------------------
                        B.A. No. 2981 of 2010
                ---------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this 27th day of May, 2010.


                                    ORDER

Petition for bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 4 of the Explosive

Substances Act. According to prosecution, on 24.11.1981 at about

10 a.m. some country bombs and chopper were seized from the de

facto complainant’s shop. On enquiry, it was revealed those

articles were kept there by first and second accused. Petitioner is

the 2nd accused. Hence, a crime was registered against petitioner

and another.

3. The trial could not be proceeded with, because petitioner

was absent. Petitioner was granted bail in this case, but later he

absconded. Hence, non-bailable warrant was issued against

etitioner and he was arrested on 9.5.2010. He is in custody since

then.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner

was granted bail but he was forced to go abroad in connection

with his job. He came back long back and is permanently residing

within the limits of police station but petitioner was not arrested

by police and hence he thought that proceedings were over. He

]B.A.No.2981/10] 2

may be granted bail, it is submitted.

5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the submissions made by petitioner’s counsel that

petitioner was available in the address is not correct. On

instruction, it was found that petitioner was not residing within the

limits of the police station within which crime is registered or in the

address shown by him. He was residing within the limits of

Kallambalam Police Station and petitioner could not be arrested

since he was absconding.

5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner’s counsel was

not even able to state the stage of the trial before trial court. The

case was transferred to long pending case as L.P.No.11/99. The

proceedings are at a stand still since petitioner’s presence could

not be procured. The order by which warrant is issued to petitioner

has become final. The said order is not so far challenged. There is

nothing to show that the order issuing warrant is illegal. In such

circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion

exercised by the trial court as per a lawful order. I am satisfied

that petitioner may not be available for trial, if bail is granted at

this stage.

Hence, petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

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