Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Jayakrishnan Master vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2008

Author: R.Basant

Bench: R.Basant

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 809 of 2008()


1. JAYAKRISHNAN MASTER,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MADHUSUDHANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,
3. MANIKANTAN.T., S/O.DAMODHARAN NAIR,

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :12/02/2008

 O R D E R
                                   R.BASANT, J

                            ------------------------------------

                              B.A.No.809 of 2008

                            -------------------------------------

                Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008



                                        ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 8, 9 and 19. They face allegations in a crime registered under Sections 308 and 353 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that when a police party went to the scene of the crime to disengage the quarreling activists of the B.J.P and the Muslim League, stones were thrown by the accused persons at the police party to deter them from the discharge of their official duty. Investigation is in progress. Some of the co-accused have already been arrested and enlarged on bail by this Court. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Even if the entire allegations were accepted, there are no elements of the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. The petitioners may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners may B.A.No.809 of 2008 2 be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor was requested to pointedly explain how the allegations under Section 308 I.P.C are justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion. Suffice it to say that sufficient reasons have not been shown before me to justify inclusion of the allegation under Section 308 I.P.C.

5. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this bail application can be allowed in part. This bail application is, accordingly allowed in part. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail within 10 days. When the court considers the application for regular bail, the court shall eschew and ignore the allegation under Section 308 I.P.C and dispose of the bail application. Needless to say that such application for bail, must be disposed of by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-

B.A.No.809 of 2008 3