Vivek vs State of Kerala

VIVEK vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 16, 2021

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1609177

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/1609177
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice K.Haripal
Decided On: Apr 16, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./1903/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

VIVEK

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....in the suit. it is alleged that knowing about the visit of the commissioner in the property, the petitioner reached there and obstructed the commissioner from the discharge of her duties and also threatened her.2. i heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned public prosecutor.3. according to the learned counsel, though the incidenthad happened on 23.12.2020, the complaint was reported only on 06.01.2021, which is the result of an afterthought. moreover, he did not know about the appointment of the commissioner, that it bail appl.no.1903 of 2021 3 was an ex-parte commission. whatever it may be, it is certain that the execution of a warrant issued by the court of law was tried to be obstructed by the petitioner and that gave rise to cause of action for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner.4. having heard the counsel on both sides, i do notthink that an order under section 438 can be issued at this stage. however, the petitioner is allowed to surrender before the investigating officer within a period of ten days from today. in that event, if his arrest is necessary that will be recorded on that day itself and the investigation officer shall take follow up actions, as expeditiously as possible. subject to the above, the application is closed. sd/- k.haripal judgedcs/16.04.2021

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943 Bail Appl.No.1903 OF 2021 CRIME NO.53/2021 OF POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/ACCUSED: VIVEK AGED 25 YEARS VELAMPARAMBIL, NADUVATH NAGAR P.O, AROOKUTTY, ALAPPUZHA PIN - 688526 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION

BY SRI. E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Appl.No.1903 OF 2021 2

ORDER

This is an application filed by the sole accused in Crime No.53/2021 of Poochakkal Police Station, which was registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala in O.S.No.617/2020. The Commissioner had visited the plaint schedule property along with the plaintiff. Petitioner is the defendant in the suit. It is alleged that knowing about the visit of the Commissioner in the property, the petitioner reached there and obstructed the Commissioner from the discharge of her duties and also threatened her.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. According to the learned counsel, though the incident

had happened on 23.12.2020, the complaint was reported only on 06.01.2021, which is the result of an afterthought. Moreover, he did not know about the appointment of the Commissioner, that it Bail Appl.No.1903 OF 2021 3 was an ex-parte commission. Whatever it may be, it is certain that the execution of a warrant issued by the court of law was tried to be obstructed by the petitioner and that gave rise to cause of action for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Having heard the counsel on both sides, I do not

think that an order under Section 438 can be issued at this stage. However, the petitioner is allowed to surrender before the investigating officer within a period of ten days from today. In that event, if his arrest is necessary that will be recorded on that day itself and the investigation officer shall take follow up actions, as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above, the application is closed. Sd/- K.HARIPAL JUDGE

DCS/16.04.2021

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2021 Same Parties VIVEK vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice K.Haripal