SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21921

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
RAHIM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED; SRI.V.S.MANSOOR

O R D E R

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.4906/2015 of Perumbavoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections

332,225,341 and 353 IPC .

2. The allegation of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, being a civil police officer, had attempted to execute a warrant issued against the accused in L.P.No.2/2013 of Sessions Court. In the course of discharge of that legal duty, the petitioners herein are stated to have interfered and forcefully got released the accused. He escaped from the spot. It is alleged that in the course of their action, they used criminal force also. On the basis of the complaint, crime was registered. Petitioners seek pre arrest bail.

3. Heard and examined the records.

4. Records indicate that the defacto complainant was in uniform.

The detailed narration of the defacto complaint also indicates that he was exercising his lawful duty and that the accused was sought to be arrested seems to have been conveyed. Though the conduct of the petitioners cannot be justified, it does not warrant a custodial interrogation of the petitioners. This is all the more so, since the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that both the petitioners

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top