Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
exit_to_app
His name is Khan, after all
access_time 2021-10-18T10:43:46+05:30
Not Rahul; Time for Priyanka in Uttar Pradesh
access_time 2021-10-18T15:35:44+05:30
Five years on,  Najeeb still missing
access_time 2021-10-14T11:35:37+05:30
access_time 2021-10-13T13:28:12+05:30
More than just an award, a message
access_time 2021-10-11T09:31:16+05:30
DEEP READ
exit_to_app
Homechevron_rightKeralachevron_rightVellapally hits back...

Vellapally hits back at Sudheeran

text_fields
bookmark_border
Vellapally hits back at Sudheeran
cancel

Cherthala: SNDP general secretary Vellapally Natesan Friday hit back at KPCC president V.M Sudheeran for criticising the High Court in connection with the anticipatory bail granted to him.

“His remarks are rooted in his personal hatred against me,” alleged Vellapally.

On Thursday, Sudheeran had criticised the High Court for making ill-timed observations while hearing the anticipatory bail application of SNDP Yogam general secretary Vellapally Natesan in connection with the case registered against him for making communally provocative speeches.

The KPCC president said the court made the remarks without going into the merits of the case. “The police are examining the speech following allegations that it had stirred up communal passions and created unrest and disharmony between different religious communities in the state.”

“Under these circumstances, the court making observations about the merits of the case, and that too without examining the case diary, was inopportune. Such remarks at a time when the probe was in its initial stage would have an adverse impact on the investigations into the case,” he said.

Sudheeran pointed out that the court observations were also against the Supreme Court verdict that the merits of the case should not be evaluated while granting bail to an accused.

The High Court, while granting the anticipatory bail to Vellapally, had said: “Prima facie it would appear that the petitioner was agitating against the discriminatory practices adopted by the state.”

“It would be difficult to hold that the objectionable words used in the speech have the effect of promoting disharmony or feelings. The petitioner was agitated about the state’s attitude towards different communities,” the court said.

Show Full Article
TAGS:
Next Story