Dismissed

Vimal Raj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014Bail Appl./2575/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding offenses under sections 341, 323, and 326 read with section 34 of the IPC, the court dismissed the petitioners' request for pre-arrest bail, directing them to surrender and appear before the investigating officer for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioners directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer on 11.06.2014.

Vimal Raj Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO. 2575 OF 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 428/2014 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

1. VIMAL RAJ AGED 30 YEARS S/O. SOMARAYAJ, CHAYAKADA MUKKU, ASRAMAM KOLLAM.

¶9

2. PRASHOBAHN @ JOTHISH, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, MULLAVEETTILKIZHAKKATHIL C.N. NAGAR, CONDONMENT NORTH, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:P

¶15

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶16

====================================

¶17

B.A. No.2575 of 2014

¶18

====================================

¶19

Dated this the 04^th day of June, 2014

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.428 of 2014 of the Kollam East Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 326 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed this application.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 28.02.2014 at about 8.30 p.m due to political rivalry, petitioners came in an autorikshaw, the autorikshaw was caused to run over the leg of the de facto complainant and he was assaulted with stone resulting in fracture of the left ribs.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not

¶24

true.

¶25

On going through the relevant records and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kollam I find that the learned Sessions Judge has refused pre-arrest bail on sufficient reasons. Learned Sessions Judge has directed the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer.

¶26

B.A. No. 2575 of 2014

¶27

-: 2 :-

¶28

Having regard to the relevant circumstances, request for pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed.

¶29

Application is disposed of as under:

¶30

(i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.428 of 2014 of the Kollam East Police Station on 11.06.2014 at 10.00 a.m and on other dates directed by him in case interrogation is not completed.

¶31

(ii) In case the petitioners are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on the date of arrest itself.

¶32

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶33

vsv

Vimal Raj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Raj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Vs State of Kerala

Deepan Vs State of Kerala

Vijith Vs State of Kerala

Omana Vs Excise Inspector

Ummer M.P Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sajeevan P.P Vs State of Kerala