BAIL APPL No. 206 of 2007 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Jan 2007
- Bench
- V RAMKUMAR
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observation this application is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. In as much asnon-bailable warrant 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…
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J.-------------------------------Bail Application No. 206 of 2007 -------------------------------DATED: 10th January, 2007
O R D E R Petitioner who is the Ist accused in Crime No. 610/1998 of the Central PoliceStation, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 157 Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sec. 420, 486, 587and 488 of I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.
The petitioner was granted bail during the crime stage. After the filing of thecharge-sheet the case was registered as C.C. 238/2000 before the Chief JudicialMagistrate, Ernakulam. Eventhough the petitioner, responding to the summons had appeared before that court, subsequently he failed to appear and consequently non-bailablewarrant of arrest was issued against him after cancelling his bail bond. It is at this stage hat the petitioner has approached this court by filing this application.
Operative part
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. In as much asnon-bailable warrant 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and files an application for regular bail within two weeks 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. With the above observation this application is disposed of. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.ani
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observation this application is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Trade andMerchandise Marks Act; Copyright Act, 1957 — s. 13; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 10 Jan 2007. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.