Disposed

Reeja P v. Sub Inspector of Police,Malappuram

Kerala HC10 Jun 2011Bail Appl./3817/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to four petitioners accused of offences under Section 420 IPC and vigilantism-related actions, accepting the prosecution's submission regarding a potential notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition closed; anticipatory bail granted effectively by closing the proceedings on the production of the submission.

Reeja P Vs Sub Inspector of Police,Malappuram — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3817 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.210/2011 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3

¶7

¶8

REEJA P., SREE RAGAM, PANDAMANGALAM, KOTTAKKAL.

¶9

VINOD P., PALLIKKARA HOUSE, THRIKULAM, TIRURANGADI P.O.

¶10

M.AJITH KUMAR, SREEHARI, KOTTAPPADI, KOTTAKKAL.

¶11

P.GOPIKRISHNAN, PULLOOR HOUSE, PANDAMANGALAM, KOTTAKKAL.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM-676503.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676121.

¶17

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

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶21

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bail Application No.3817 of 2011**

¶22

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011**

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners, seek anticipatory bail on the allegation that the Kottakkal Police are at their heels on an allegation of commission of non-bailable offences.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that originally the Kottakkal Police had registered Crime No.210/2011 against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and subsequently the files were transferred to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, which has not registered any crime so far and that in case the petitioners are wanted by the Vigilance Department for interrogation a notice under Sec. 160 Cr.P.C will be given.

¶26

Recording the submission made by the Public Prosecutor, this petition is closed.

¶27

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2011.

¶28

V. RAMKUMAR,

¶29

(JUDGE)

¶30

Reeja P v. Sub Inspector of Police,Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reeja P v. Sub Inspector of Police,Malappuram

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

Binu Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Raj Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara.

Prasanth Vs State of Kerala

Khadeeja Vs the State of Kerala

Vijeesh.M.P and Others Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Nair Vs State