Marimuthu V., vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided May 23, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1325331

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1325331
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias
Decided On: May 23, 2024
Case Number: Bail Appl./3993/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Marimuthu V.,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....kottathara p.o., mele kottathara, palakkad, pin - 678581 by advs. t.k.sandeep swetha r.respondent: state of kerala, represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam, pin - 682031 other present: sr smt seetha s this bail application having come up for admission on 23.05.2024, the court on the same day delivered the following: -:2:- dated this the 23rd day of may,2024orderthe application is filed under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.2. the petitioner apprehends arrest in an unknown crime by the sholayur police station, for allegedly committing the offences under sections 234 & 326 of the indian penal code, 1860.3. heard; sri. t.k.sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and smt. seetha. s, the learned senior public prosecutor.4. the learned public prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is the sole accused in crime no.45/2024 of the sholayur police station, palakkad, registered against him.5. on a reading of the bail application none of -:3:-the details pertaining to the incident, crime number or the offences have been mentioned. the bail application is vague and lacks the requisite details, particularly the accusation levelled against the petitioner. therefore, in view of the conspicuous absence of the elementary details, i hold that the application is not sustainable, and the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application after incorporating all the requisite details.in the result, the bail application is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after incorporating his rank, crime number, the offences and also the specific accusation levelled against him. sd/- c.s.dias,judge dst/23.05.24 //true copy// p.a. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3993 OF 2024 PETITIONER: MARIMUTHU V., AGED 41 YEARS S/O. VETTACHAMI, KOTTATHARA P.O., MELE KOTTATHARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678581 BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP SWETHA R.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:- Dated this the 23rd day of May,2024

ORDER

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in an unknown crime by the Sholayur Police Station, for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 234 & 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Heard; Sri. T.K.Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha. S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.45/2024 of the Sholayur Police Station, Palakkad, registered against him.

5. On a reading of the bail application none of -:3:-

the details pertaining to the incident, crime number or the offences have been mentioned. The bail application is vague and lacks the requisite details, particularly the accusation levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the conspicuous absence of the elementary details, I hold that the application is not sustainable, and the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application after incorporating all the requisite details.

In the result, the bail application is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after incorporating his rank, crime number, the offences and also the specific accusation levelled against him. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/23.05.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Marimuthu V., vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias