Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sermaraj vs State of Kerala

Sermaraj vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jul 29, 2024
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1328091

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./5581/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sermaraj

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....kollam district, pin - 689695 other present: sr pp smt seetha s this bail application having come up for admission on 29.07.2024, the court on the same day delivered the following: -:2:- dated this the 29th day of july,2024orderthe application is filed under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.2. the petitioners apprehend arrest in an unknown crime by the pathanapuram forest range office, kollam for allegedly committing a non-bailable offence.3. heard; sri. boby thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and smt. seetha s., the learned senior public prosecutor.4. the learned public prosecutor, on instructionssubmitted that the petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in crime no.3/2024 of the ambanad forest station, pathanapuram range, kollam for allegedly committing the offences under the forest act. the said submission -:3:- is recorded.5. on a reading of the bail application, it can beseen that none of the details or materials pertaining to the incident, crime number, the offences or the rank of the accused have been stated. the bail application is vague and lacks the requisite details, particularly the offences levelled against the petitioner. it is well- settled in gurbaksh singh sibbia v. state of punjab [(1980) 2 scc 565 ] as well as kusha duruka v. state of odisha [2024 (1) khc 389] that a bail application should contain the elementary details pertaining to the accusations levelled against the accused. therefore, i am of the view that the present application is unsustainable in law and the petitioners would be 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 petitioners to file a -:4:- fresh bail application, if so advised, after incorporating their rank, crime number, the offences and all the accusations levelled against them. sd/- c.s.dias,judge rmm/29/7/2024

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 5581 OF 2024 CRIME NO.0/0 OF PATHANAPURAM FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: 1 SERMARAJ AGED 26 YEARS S/O MUNIYASAMY, 25 A, MUPPIDATHI AMMAN KOVIL STREET, RAJAJIPURAM, KANDIYAPERI, TIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 627006 2 SIVARAJAN AGED 28 YEARS S/O MUNIYASAMY, A/5, RAJAJIPURAM, MANTHIRAMOORTHI MIDDLE STREET, TIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 627006 BY ADVS. BOBY THOMAS WINSTON K.V RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER PATHANAPURAM FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 689695 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:- Dated this the 29th day of July,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 petitioners apprehend arrest in an unknown crime by the Pathanapuram Forest Range Office, Kollam for allegedly committing a non-bailable offence.

3. Heard; Sri. Boby Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions

submitted that the petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.3/2024 of the Ambanad Forest Station, Pathanapuram Range, Kollam for allegedly committing the offences under the Forest Act. The said submission -:3:- is recorded.

5. On a reading of the bail application, it can be

seen that none of the details or materials pertaining to the incident, crime number, the offences or the rank of the accused have been stated. The bail application is vague and lacks the requisite details, particularly the offences levelled against the petitioner. It is well- settled in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565 ] as well as Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha [2024 (1) KHC 389] that a bail application should contain the elementary details pertaining to the accusations levelled against the accused. Therefore, I am of the view that the present application is unsustainable in law and the petitioners would be 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 petitioners to file a -:4:- fresh bail application, if so advised, after incorporating their rank, crime number, the offences and all the accusations levelled against them. SD/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE rmm/29/7/2024

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial