High Court Kerala High Court

Sri.Ummer vs State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sri.Ummer vs State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1074 of 2007()


1. SRI.UMMER, S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :01/03/2007

 O R D E R
                                   V. RAMKUMAR, J.

                      ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

                                 B.A. No. 1074 OF 2007

                      ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

                       Dated this the 1st day of March, 2007


                                          O R D E R

Petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.356/02 of

Areacode Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468

read with section 34 IPC, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2002 at about

10.30 a.m. the police patrol party stumbled upon the first accused carrying

river sand illicitly on the basis of a forged pass and on interrogation he

revealed that the pass furnished by him was given by one Babu, who in turn

was given the pass by the petitioner.

3. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner in

C.C.No.375/2004 on the file of the CJM, Manjeri, non-bailable warrants of

arrest are pending against the petitioner. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted

to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no

reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the Magistrate

concerned and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders

before the Magistrate concerned and files an application for regular bail,

within one month from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of,

preferably on the same date on which it is filed, after examining the

explanation offered by the petitioner for his previous non-appearance.

This application is disposed of as above.

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

aks