Judgment · High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 307, 324, 326, 427, 449
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ss. 3, 4
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 27
Judgment
V.RAMKUMAR, J.-------------------------------------B.A.No. 7512 OF 2006-----------------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006
O R D E R Petitioner who is the second accused in Crime No.137/06 of Hill Palace Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143,147, 148, 449, 324, 326, 307, 302, 427 and 201 read with section149 IPC, sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, andsection 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 seeks his enlargement on bail. Theoccurrence took place on 6.3.2006. The petitioner was arrested on29.3.2006.2.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applicationsubmitting, inter alia, that the petitioner is an accused in four othercrimes involving serious offences and that the bail granted to the firstaccused and others is sought to be cancelled since they have misusedthe liberty granted to them. Having regard to the antecedents of thepetitioner and the manner inflicting the fatal injuries on deceasedAjeesh, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, particularlywhen accused Nos.4 and 6 in the case are still absconding. This petition is accordingly dismissed.V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGEdsn
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 307, 324, 326, 427, 449; Explosive Substances Act, 1908 — ss. 3, 4; Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 19 Dec 2006. 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.