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.

Ratheesh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

Ratheesh Kumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 20, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1009541

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ratheesh Kumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....j sam respondent/complainant: ------------------------------------------------ state of kerala represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala,ernakulam. by public prosecutor sri.v.s.sreejith this bail application having come up for admission on 20-12-2012, the court on the same day passed the following: sts p. bhavadasan, j.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - b.a. no. 8824 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 20th day of december, 2012. order petitioner is an accused in crime no.1337 of 2012 of pathanamthitta police station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 308, 294(b) read with section 149 i.p.c. and section 3(1) of the p.d.p.p. act. though the petitioner claims to be innocent, that claim does not appear to be correct on a perusal of the cd made available for perusal by the learned public prosecutor.2. considering the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner, it is felt that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. therefore, this application is dismissed. however, if the petitioner is so advised, he may surrender before the investigating officer on or before b.a.8824/2012”28. 12.2012, who after interrogation, shall produce him before the jfcm court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. p. bhavadasan, judge sb.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 Bail Appl..No. 8824 of 2012 () ------------------------------ CRIME NO.1337/2012 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ------------------------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- RATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.KAMALAHASAN, NARANGATTU MURUPPEL, ELAVANTHITTA P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P. BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 8824 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December, 2012. ORDER Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1337 of 2012 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 308, 294(b) read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of the P.D.P.P. Act. Though the petitioner claims to be innocent, that claim does not appear to be correct on a perusal of the CD made available for perusal by the learned Public Prosecutor.

2. Considering the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner, it is felt that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this application is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is so advised, he may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before B.A.8824/2012”

28. 12.2012, who after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM Court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial