Dismissed

Muhammed Aslam v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC2 Jun 2017Bail Appl./2413/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a bail application preferred by the 2nd accused. The application seeking pre-arrest bail was dismissed as it was not justified to grant relief. However, the court permitted the petitioner to surrender to the investigating officer as prayed by counsel.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; permission granted to surrender and cooperate with investigation.

Muhammed Aslam Vs the Station House Officer — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2413 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 323/2017 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

MUHAMMED ASLAM

¶9

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MAHAMOOD, ERAMMAL HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶14

R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rmm

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶18

B.A.No.2413 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 02^nd day of June, 2017

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.The 2^nd accused in Crime No.323/2017 of Valapattanam Police Station has preferred this application seeking prearrest bail.

¶22

2.According to the prosecution, on 17.03.2017, petitioner along with the 1^st accused transported river sand in a lorry after extracting the same from the kadavu. Noticing the involvement of the accused, the aforesaid crime was registered alleging offence punishable under section 379 of the IPC and section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act.

¶23

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

4.The learned Public Prosecutor, placing reference on the case diary submitted that the petitioner was present in the vehicle which was registered in his name and which was used for transporting river sand illegally extracted.

¶25

5.After having considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record, it does not appear to

¶26

B.A.No.2413 of 2017 2

¶27

me that this Court will be justified in granting the reliefs sought for. I am not inclined to allow the application.

¶28

6.However, at this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays that he be permitted to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. If the petitioner is so advised, he may surrender before the investigating officer, who shall interrogate him. If arrest of the petitioner is found necessary, the investigating officer shall thereafter produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the statutory period. On such production, if an application for bail is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶31

Bb/03/06/2017

¶32

[True copy]

¶33

P.A to Judge

Muhammed Aslam v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Aslam v. the Station House Officer

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

Pushpakumari Vs State of Kerala

Visalakshy Vs State of Kerala

Susheela Vs State of Kerala

Sumish K M Vs State of Kerala

Nishad.C.M Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Kumar.P Vs State of Kerala