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.

Nikhil Vs. State of Kerala

Nikhil vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 28, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1011561

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

Nikhil

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....is aged only 20. he further submits that the petitioner apprehends arrest by the police at any time.4. the learned public prosecutor has opposed this application. the case diary shows that the investigation of the case has progressed much. the learned public prosecutor has b.a. no. 9585 of 2012 -:2:- not disputed the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is aged only 20. there is no dispute regarding the fact that the de facto complainant has not suffered any serious injuries. on considering the stage of investigation, age of the petitioner and the fact that the de facto complainant has not suffered any serious injuries in the occurrence, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail imposing appropriate conditions. therefore, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions:1) the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on or before 8.1.2013. in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.2) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him or her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. b.a. no. 9585 of 2012 -:3:-3) the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.4) the petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.5) the petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.6) the petitioner shall not leave india without the previous permission of the concerned magistrate's court. this application is allowed as above. (babu mathew p.joseph, judge) ul/-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 7TH POUSHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 9585 of 2012 () ------------------------------ (IN CRIME NO.848 OF 201.OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL POLICE DISTRICT) PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ---------------------- NIKHIL, S/O.LATE RAJAN, AGED 2 YEARS EDAKKANDI - HOUSE,PONMERI PARAMBIL POST,VATAKARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V COMPLAINANT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA (IN CRIME NO.848/2012 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION)REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT FO KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31. R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.M. SANEER. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, J ------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 9585 of 2012 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of December, 2012 ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. C.D. produced.

3. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.848 of 2012 of Vatakara Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations raised against him. He has no criminal antecedents. He is aged only 20. He further submits that the petitioner apprehends arrest by the police at any time.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this application. The Case Diary shows that the investigation of the case has progressed much. The learned Public Prosecutor has B.A. No. 9585 of 2012 -:2:- not disputed the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is aged only 20. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the de facto complainant has not suffered any serious injuries. On considering the stage of investigation, age of the petitioner and the fact that the de facto complainant has not suffered any serious injuries in the occurrence, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail imposing appropriate conditions. Therefore, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions:

1) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 8.1.2013. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

2) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him or her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. B.A. No. 9585 of 2012 -:3:-

3) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

4) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

5) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

6) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the concerned Magistrate's Court. This application is allowed as above. (BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE) ul/-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial