Ranjith vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 29 April, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2409 of 2008()


1. RANJITH, S/O. M.P. CHANDRAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :29/04/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    B.A.No. 2409 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 29th day of April, 2008

                               O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces

allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable,

inter alia, under section 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The crux of the

allegations is that the accused persons, including the petitioner,

were members of an unlawful assembly, which in prosecution of

its common object attempted to cause the death of the victims.

The victims and the accused are allegedly students of a school

and the incident took place in the school.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

allegation under Section 307 I.P.C. has been included without

any justification. The petitioner is aged only 17 years. He may

now be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.

3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He

submits that the wound certificate is not available in the case

diary. The statement of the doctor has been read over to me.

B.A.No. 2409 of 2008
2

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the

opposition by the learned Prosecutor. This, I agree with the Prosecutor,

is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal

procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned

Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual

course. If as a matter of fact the petitioner is aged below 18 years, he

will certainly be entitled to claim the benefits under the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

5. This application is accordingly dismissed with the above

observations. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner

appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after

giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the

case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits,

in accordance with law and expeditiously.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm