Dismissed

Vimal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jun 2018Bail Appl./2130/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It held that the applicant should surrender to the regularization court and seek bail there instead. The court rejected the delay explanation and noted serious injuries from an iron rod assault.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed. Applicant instructed to surrender and seek regular bail from the jurisdictional court.

Vimal Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2130 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 391/2018 OF CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶8

VIMALA AGED 28 YEARS,S/O. VIJAYAN,KOTTATHARA COLONY, ELANJIMEL, PULIYOOR,CHENGANNUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.(CRIME NO.391/2018 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT)

¶12

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689 594 (CRIME NO.1832/2017 OF SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

AL/-

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶17

B.A No.2130 of 2018

¶18

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.391

¶22

of 2018 of Chengannur Police Station, registered under Sections 448 and 326 of the IPC.

¶23

The prosecution allegation is that on 3.2.2018 at about 6.30 p.m., the applicant trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and without any provocation, assaulted him with an iron rod causing him fracture to his left leg.

¶24

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that though the incident had taken place on 3.2.2018, the law was set in motion only on 9.2.2018. The delay has not been properly explained. There are some disputes betweenthe de facto complainant and the accused with regard to parking of

¶25

vehicles. Only a minor altercation had taken place and no serious injuries were inflicted is the submission.

¶26

B.A No.2130 of 2018

¶27

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer and he has made available the case diary. It appears that the de facto complainant was admitted in the hospital on 3.2.2018 and was discharged only on 7.2.2018. He has offered sufficient explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.Statement. Furthermore, the discharge certificate sufficiently corroborates the case of the prosecution.

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I see

¶30

no reason to allow this application. The applicant shall surrender before the jurisdictional court forthwith and seek regular bail. If an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously on its merits. This application will stand dismissed.

¶31

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶32

AL/-28/6.

¶33

//true copy//

¶34

P.S to Judge

Vimal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal 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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Amal Vs State of Kerala

Binil Vs State of Kerala

Arun Vs State of Kerala

Shybu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Biju K.K Vs State of Kerala