Dismissed

Vimal Kumar T.V. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Sept 2015Bail Appl./4594/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala ordered the accused not to claim pre-arrest bail due to the case's impact on ecological balance. The petitioner was directed to surrender for interrogation and was not permitted to move for regular bail immediately, though allowed to do so after surrender.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender before Investigating Officer within two weeks; refused anticipatory bail; permitted to move for regular bail after surrender.

Vimal Kumar T.V. Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/18TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4594 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 110/2015 OF EDAVANNA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

NAME AND ADDERSS OF THE PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

VIMAL KUMAR T.V, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, THEKKEATTOM HOUSE, PALLITHODU P.O., THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SHAJU

¶10

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAVANA POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶16

B.A. No.4594 of 2015

¶17

Dated this the 9^th day of September, 2015

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 110 of 2015 of

¶21

Edavanna Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.

¶22

Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. Petitioner pleaded innocence.

¶23

Heard both sides.

¶24

The offences alleged against the petitioner have a direct

¶25

bearing on the ecological balance and economic interest of this Country. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to plead for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and submit himself for interrogation. The Investigating Officer shall produce him before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction on the date of surrender itself. Thereafter, the petitioner is free to move for regular bail before the learned Magistrate. In that event, the learned Magistrate shall

¶26

¶27

BA No.4594/2015

¶28

consider the application as expeditiously as possible on merits.

¶29

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶30

cks

Vimal Kumar T.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Kumar T.V. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.T.Pazhani Vs State of Kerala

Faisal Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sharafudeen Vs State of Kerala

Babukuttan Vs State Ofkerala

Eldhose Mathews, S/O.Mathews Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala