Dismissed

Lagy Philip v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2008Bail Appl./1022/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered an application for anticipatory bail filed by two accused persons fearing arrest in other pending cases. The Public Prosecutor submitted that no arrest was necessary as the accused were already on bail in the sole pending case. The court found the apprehension baseless and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; no apprehension of arrest found.

Lagy Philip Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 1022 of 2008()

¶5

----------------------------CRIME NO. 708/07 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶7

¶8

LAGY PHILIP, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.K.C.PHILIP (LATE), PUTHENVILA VEEDU, KARAVALOOR P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

MINI LAGY, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.LAGY PHILIP, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, KARAVALOOR P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R. BASANT, J.

¶17

- - - - B.A.No. 1022 of 2008

¶18

¶19

Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners apprehend arrest on the allegation that they have committed nonbailable offences. According to the petitioners, they are not guilty of any non-bailable offence at all. In Crime No.708 of 2007 of Punalur police they have already been granted regular bail. But still, according to the petitioners, they were being threatened of arrest and they apprehend arrest.

¶22

Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. After taking instructions, he submits that the petitioners are not required to be arrested in any other case. They have already been enlarged on bail in the only case pending against them, i.e. Crime No.708 of 2007. They shall not be arrested in any other pending crime, submits the learned Prosecutor.

¶23

In the light of the submissions of the learned Prosecutor,

¶24

which I accept, it is evident that the apprehension of the petitioners is without any basis.

¶25

B.A.No. 1022 of 2008

¶26

¶27

This application is accordingly dismissed accepting the

¶28

submissions of the learned Prosecutor.

¶29

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶30

Lagy Philip v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lagy Philip v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese Vs State of Kerala & Others

Chacko Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Satheeshkumar Vs State of Kerala & Another

Nishad Vs State of Kerala

Suku Vs State of Kerala

Firozkhan @ Firoz Vs State of Kerala