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.

Kannan Vs. State of Kerala

Kannan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 19, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1012579

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

Kannan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....b.a no.9191 of 2012 --------------------------------------------------- dated this the 19th day of december, 2012 order based on annexures 2 and 3, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the allegation against him which gave rise to crime no.1817/2012 cannot be true. it is also contended that in order to get over inconvenience caused by the crime against him, the defacto complainant cooked up a story against the petitioner.2. after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned public prosecutor and after having perused the records made available, it is felt that it is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. accordingly, the petition is allowed as follows: i) the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on or before 28.12.2012, who after interrogation shall produce him before the jfcm concerned and on application for bail moved by the petitioner, the learned magistrate shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court. b.a no.9191 of 2012 :2. ii) the learned magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. iii) the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer concerned for interrogation as and when required by him until further orders. iv) the petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. v) if any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the jfcm concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law. p.bhavadasan judge ab

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 28TH AGRAHAYANA 193 Bail Appl..No. 9191 of 2012 () ------------------------------ (CRIME NO.1817/12, CHAVARA POLICED STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------ KANNAN, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.MADASWAMY, SIVAPRAKASHAM PUTHUVAL, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT/STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: MNS P.BHAVADASAN, J ----------------------------------------- B.A No.9191 of 2012 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2012 ORDER

Based on Annexures 2 and 3, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the allegation against him which gave rise to Crime No.1817/2012 cannot be true. It is also contended that in order to get over inconvenience caused by the crime against him, the defacto complainant cooked up a story against the petitioner.

2. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records made available, it is felt that it is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed as follows: i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 28.12.2012, who after interrogation shall produce him before the JFCM concerned and on application for bail moved by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Court. B.A No.9191 of 2012 :

2. ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. Iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned for interrogation as and when required by him until further orders. iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law. P.BHAVADASAN Judge ab

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial