Driver of Axia wedged between lorries after going against traffic charged
JOHOR BARU: A man, whose vehicle was wedged between two lorries after driving against the traffic, was charged with reckless driving in the magistrates' court yesterday.
S. Thaanesh, 26, pleaded not guilty when the charge was read before magistrate Nur Fatin Mohamad Farid, Buletin Utama reported.
According to the charge sheet, the man, as the driver of a car, was accused of reckless driving against the flow of traffic at Km4, Jalan Gelang Patah–Ulu Choh here, at around 9am on May 9.
He was charged under Section 42(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (Amendment 2020), which carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment and a fine of up to RM15,000 for a first conviction.
If found guilty, the accused may also face disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a minimum of five years, endorsement of the licence by the court, and cancellation of a probationary licence, if applicable.
Deputy public prosecutor Amirah Tasnim Saleh offered bail at RM15,000 with one surety and proposed three additional conditions.
The accused must report to the nearest police station once a month, surrender his passport to the court, and have his driving licence suspended until the case is resolved.
Defence lawyer V. S. Selvanteran, representing the accused, requested a lower bail amount as his client runs a small business and supports his mother, who is a single parent.
The court then granted bail of RM6,000 with one surety and imposed the three additional conditions requested by the prosecution.
The case has been fixed for mention on June 20 for document submission.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
High Court affirms father's right to access despite maintenance arrears
KUALA LUMPUR: A father's failure to pay child maintenance should not prevent him from having access to his children, the High Court has ruled. Judge Evrol Mariette Peters said it was important to draw a clear distinction between the issues of maintenance and access, emphasising that they are legally and conceptually separate. She said that if the father had indeed defaulted on maintenance payments as ordered by the court, the mother had legal recourse through committal proceedings. Peters said this during a committal proceeding initiated by a 45-year-old man (the petitioner) against his former wife (the respondent), after she denied him access to their 11-year-old son and unilaterally moved the child to Singapore. The court ruled in favour of the petitioner and imposed a RM20,000 fine on the respondent for contempt of court. According to court documents, the petitioner claimed he had been denied access to the child and had not been provided with any information about the child's whereabouts or well-being since January 2022. It was later discovered that the respondent had relocated and unilaterally moved the child to Singapore, where they were both currently residing. The respondent claimed that the child had expressed unhappiness and refused to meet the petitioner. However, Peters said her judicial interview with the child revealed that the child's perspective was not entirely autonomous, as the responses lacked spontaneity and depth. "The child appeared to echo sentiments that seemed rehearsed or externally influenced. "He was unable to offer any substantial or cogent reasons for his refusal to have contact with the petitioner. "Instead, his justifications centred around relatively minor grievances and a few isolated incidents that he claimed had occurred several years ago," she said in her grounds of judgment dated June 4. Peters said the dynamics of a relationship between a father and child differ from those with the mother. "Parties must be reminded that the role of a father is to ensure that a child is raised in a nourishing environment. "In my view, the child's continued clinging to his mother's influence, to the exclusion of meaningful contact with his father, was not a healthy dynamic. "It is important for the child to benefit from balanced parental input, including the presence of a consistent and positive male role model. "Exposure to both maternal and paternal guidance serves not only to enrich the child's emotional development but also to foster a more balanced and resilient sense of identity," she said. The court said denying the child that opportunity based solely on his current attachment to his mother would not serve his long-term interests and could risk perpetuating a narrow and emotionally limiting environment. "In the present case, there was also no evidence before the court to suggest that the petitioner had ever been abusive, neglectful or otherwise unfit to have contact with the child. "In light of this, I was of the firm view that it was in the best interest of the child's welfare for the petitioner to continue having access."
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
#SHOWBIZ: Actress Saidah Kamarudin cancels wedding, claims ex has only RM500 in bank account
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysian actress Saidah Kamarudin has revealed the reasons behind her decision to call off her engagement to fellow actor Muhammad Muntazar Ghufran in October last year. The former couple became engaged in May 2024, following a year of dating. In a recent interview, Saidah, 29, cited financial instability as a primary factor in her decision to end the wedding plans. She claimed that Muntazar, 22, had only RM500 in his bank account. "You should be looking for a job or continuing your studies," she lamented. The actress further alleged that following their breakup, Muntazar hacked into her TikTok account and posted fabricated comments under her name in an attempt to damage her reputation. It's understood that Saidah filed a police report at the Setia Alam police station in Shah Alam, Selangor, on May 31. "When Muntazar and I were still together, we shared the passwords to our social media accounts. After we broke up, I changed my passwords and removed all access." Meanwhile, Muntazar has refuted Saidah's claims that he was unable to afford their wedding. The actor explained that he told her he had additional funds invested in unit trusts. "I told Saidah about it, but she told me that's investment savings and not actual money. If it's true that I have only RM500 in savings, how is it possible for me to pay close to RM1,000 monthly for my car while also giving my family around RM1,000?" he argued.
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Tailor pleads not guilty to molesting teen with disability
KUALA LUMPUR: A tailor pleaded not guilty in the Ampang Sessions Court to a charge of outraging the modesty of a teenage girl with a disability last month. Muhammad Arif Zulfakar Abdul Razak, 25, is accused of committing the offence against the 17-year-old girl in the restroom of a vocational training centre in Taman Keramat, here, around 6.30pm in early May. Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Norhidayah Abdullah Sani requested bail of RM6,000 with additional conditions that the accused be prohibited from approaching the victim or tampering with prosecution witnesses. The accused's lawyer, Lingswaran Singh, applied for minimal bail, citing his client's employment as a tailor and responsibility as the family's sole breadwinner. Judge Nurulizwan Ahmad Zubir allowed the accused to be released on bail of RM4,000 with the additional conditions requested by the prosecution and fixed July 21 for case mention. In the same court, technician Ahmad Nizar Ahmad Aminudin, 51, pleaded not guilty to threatening a 46-year-old man with a knife at a restaurant in front of a flat in Taman Dato Ahmad Razali on May 28. He was charged under Section 506 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, or a fine, or both, upon conviction. DPP Norhidayah proposed a bail of RM5,000 with one surety. However, the accused's lawyer, Vinobha Doss from the National Legal Aid Foundation, requested a lower bail on the grounds that his client is the sole breadwinner of his family. The court granted bail at RM3,000 with one surety and fixed July 10 for case mention.- Bernama
