IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4003 of 2007(S)
1. SANTHEEP KUMAR K., AGED 23 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SUDHEESH K., AGED 18 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :18/07/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.4003 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners apprehend
arrest on the allegation that they have committed the offences
punishable under Sections 448 and 332 read with 34 I.P.C. The
learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have not
been arrayed as accused so far and they are not required to be
arrested in connection with the crime, ie. Crime No.309 of 2007 of
Irinjalakuda Police Station. I am satisfied that the said submissions of
the learned Public Prosecutor can be accepted. The apprehension of
the petitioners is, in these circumstances, found to be baseless.
2. This application for anticipatory bail is, in these
circumstances, dismissed accepting the submission of the learned
Public Prosecutor that the petitioners have not so far been arrayed as
accused and are not required to be arrested now. The learned Public
Prosecutor submits and the said submission is accepted that if the
petitioners were, at any later point of time, required to be arrested,
appropriate application shall be filed before this Court and further
directions shall be sought.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
B.A.No.4003 of 2007 2
rtr/-
R.BASANT, J
————————————
B.A.No.4003 of 2007
————————————-
B.A.No.4003 of 2007 3
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2007
ORDER
Petitioners apprehend arrest in a crime registered under
Sections 448 and 332 r/w 34 I.P.C. Consequent to power failure,
some consumers and their relatives are allegedly rushed into the
K.S.E.B office demanding restoration of power supply. In the course
of that incident, they are alleged to have committed the offence under
Section 332 I.P.C. That is the only non bailable offence alleged in the
crime. Petitioners, who are others and relatives of some of the
customers apprehend arrest.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the
investigation is in progress and it is too early to specify whether the
petitioners are required to be arrested as accused. I am satisfied,
that interim directions can be issued and the Investigator can be
given some time to specify whether the petitioners are required to be
arrested or not.
3. The case shall be called again on 17.07.2007. The learned
Public Prosecutor shall take instructions as to whether the petitioners
are required to be arrested. If in the meantime they were arrested,
they shall be released on their executing a bond without sureties for
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only). In the event of such
arrest and release, the petitioners shall appear in person before this
B.A.No.4003 of 2007 4
Court on the next date of posting.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-