High Court Kerala High Court

Sivaprasad @ Aravindan vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 29 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sivaprasad @ Aravindan vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 29 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5595 of 2008()


1. SIVAPRASAD @ ARAVINDAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. VIJAYALAKSHMI, VETTUKULANJI THEKKETHIL

                        Vs



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

2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :29/01/2009

 O R D E R
                           K. HEMA, J.
         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                      B.A. No. 5595 of 2008
         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
           Dated this the 29th day of January,2009

                            O R D E R

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. A crime was registered under the caption “unnatural

death” and subsequently, offences under sections 498A and 306

read with section 34 IPC were incorporated. Thereafter, a report

was filed stating that offence under section 302 IPC is also

involved.

3. Notices were issued to accused 1 and 2 by the

committal court and learned Magistrate was of view that though

a prayer was made by the Investigating Officer to cancel the

bail, there was no sufficient reason to allow the prayer. The

court found that court can only direct the accused to apply for

fresh bail, since a grave offence was included. Therefore,

accused 1 and 2 were directed to apply for fresh bail for offence

under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. within seven days.

In this context, petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail.

4. On hearing both sides, it is clear that offence under

section 302 IPC was included and investigation is being

conducted. Learned Magistrate has only directed the petitioner

to apply for fresh bail. The bail is not cancelled and no arrest is

ordered. Therefore, no apprehension of arrest exists and hence,

BA 5595/08 -2-

anticipatory bail cannot be granted, in the absence of any

apprehension of arrest.

This petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.