Dismissed

Rajesh K.V. v. State of Kerala & Another

Kerala HC30 Jan 2008Bail Appl./404/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court denied an application for anticipatory bail. It held the case was fit for regular bail proceedings after surrender. The Magistrate was directed to expedite the bail hearing if the petitioner surrendered.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed. Petitioner directed to surrender and seek regular bail. Magistrate directed to hear bail expeditiously.

Rajesh K.V. Vs State of Kerala & Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 404 of 2008() ----------------------------

¶5

CRIME NO.9/2008 OF THE TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

¶8

RAJESH, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 25 YEARS, KOTATH VEETTIL (H), POYIL P.O. PRIYARAM VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R. BASANT, J.

¶17

B.A. No. 404 OF 2008

¶18

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2008

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1^st accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered alleging commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.353 and 332 read with Sec.149 of the IPC. The de facto complainant was a member of a squad of Revenue officials to detect the offences under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. While they were engaged in their official duty and had intercepted boats in which the sand had been brought, they were allegedly attacked by the accused persons who wanted to deter them from the discharge of their official duty. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he, who had come in a vehicle to take away the sand which was brought in the

¶21

B.A. No. 404 OF 2008 -: 2 :-

¶22

country boats, deliberately hit on the rear of the vehicle of the de facto complainant. A Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner's vehicle was not hit deliberately on the vehicle of the de facto complainant. There was an accidental contact when the complaint's vehicle was being reversed. There is no reason to assume that the petitioner was involved in any deliberate attempt to commit offences punishable under Sec.353 or 332 of the IPC. The petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available indications clearly show that the petitioner was involved in a deliberate attempt to assault and use criminal force against the de facto complainant in an attempt to deter him from the performance of his official duty. There are no circumstances whatsoever which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C., submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

Having considered all the relevant inputs – the F.I.R.

¶26

B.A. No. 404 OF 2008 -: 3 :-

¶27

has been read over to me in detail by the learned Public Prosecutor, I am unable to perceive any features in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary and normal course.

¶28

In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

B.A. No. 404 OF 2008 -: 4 :-

Rajesh K.V. v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh K.V. v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep A.V. Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public

Nainook C. Vs State of Kerala

Sudhi Vs State of Kerala

Suneer Vs State of Kerala

Muthu and Others Vs State and Another

K.a.Razick Vs State of Kerala