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.

Ponnappan Vs. State of Kerala

Ponnappan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1014438

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

Ponnappan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....accused in crime no.25/2013 of perumbavoor police station for having committed offences punishable under sections 308, 324, 506(2) of ipc.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that on 4.1.2013 at about 7.30 pm. the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him.3. the petitioner would say that the incident has not occurred as alleged. according to the petitioner his minor daughter was continuously harassed by the defacto complainant and he has taken objection to the same. on the date of incident the minor daughter of the petitioner, while returning from the school, the defacto complainant restrained her and forcefully entrusted a photograph of the defacto complainant. the petitioner questioned the defacto complainant regarding that incident. while questioning the defacto complainant attacked the petitioner, thereby during the scuffle, the defacto complainant b.a no.331 of 2013 :2. sustained injury.4. the petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.5. the learned public prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that the records show otherwise and further the investigation is at the initial stage.6. after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned public prosecutor and perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be accepted. the records show that in fact the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with dangerous weapons and serious injuries were caused to him. a further probe into the matter is unwarranted at this point of time.7. suffice to say that, considering the nature of allegation, the manner in which act committed, the weapon used, injuries caused and also the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage, preclude this court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. however, if so advised, the petitioner may surrender before the investigating officer on or before 8.2.2013, who after interrogation,.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH MAGHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 331 of 2013 () ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 25/2013 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ............ PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------------- PONNAPPAN, AGED 4 YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,OKKAL P.O.,ANTOPURAM, OKKAL,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT : --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J ----------------------------------------- B.A No.331 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2013 ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.25/2013 of Perumbavoor Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Sections 308, 324, 506(2) of IPC.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 4.1.2013 at about 7.30 pm. the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him.

3. The petitioner would say that the incident has not occurred as alleged. According to the petitioner his minor daughter was continuously harassed by the defacto complainant and he has taken objection to the same. On the date of incident the minor daughter of the petitioner, while returning from the school, the defacto complainant restrained her and forcefully entrusted a photograph of the defacto complainant. The petitioner questioned the defacto complainant regarding that incident. While questioning the defacto complainant attacked the petitioner, thereby during the scuffle, the defacto complainant B.A No.331 of 2013 :

2. sustained injury.

4. The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that the records show otherwise and further the investigation is at the initial stage.

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be accepted. The records show that in fact the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with dangerous weapons and serious injuries were caused to him. A further probe into the matter is unwarranted at this point of time.

7. Suffice to say that, considering the nature of allegation, the manner in which act committed, the weapon used, injuries caused and also the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage, preclude this Court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. However, if so advised, the petitioner may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 8.2.2013, who after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM Court B.A No.331 of 2013 :

3. concerned. If the petitioner moves an application for regular bail before the said court, the learned Magistrate may pass orders thereon in accordance law, on the same day itself. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN Judge //True Copy// P. A to Judge ab

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial