Sindhu Vs. State of Kerala

Sindhu vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1014497

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1014497
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan
Decided On: Jan 31, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sindhu

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....january, 2013 order the petitioner is the 3rd accused in crime no.998/2012 of poojappura police station, who is alleged to have committed various offences along with other accused persons.2. the petitioner points out that she is innocent and that the only allegation is that the petitioner gave shelter to the 1st accused.3. the learned public prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that definite allegations are made against the petitioner. it is also pointed out that the petitioner has criminal antecedents.4. after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned public prosecutor and after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that she is innocent cannot be accepted. there are sufficient materials to show her involvement in the incident. a deeper probe into the b.a no.321 of 2013 :2. matter is unwarranted at this point of time. suffice to say that considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, the offence attributed, her role in the incident etc. and also the fact that investigation is at the initial stage, preclude this court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. the petition is dismissed. p.bhavadasan judge ab

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. 321 of 2013 () ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 998/2012 OF POOJAPURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ......... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------------ SINDHU, AGED 2 YEARS, W/O.SHIJO, P.T.P.NAGAR, MILITARY QUARTERS, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILISH JOHN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 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.321 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2013 ORDER

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.998/2012 of Poojappura Police Station, who is alleged to have committed various offences along with other accused persons.

2. The petitioner points out that she is innocent and that the only allegation is that the petitioner gave shelter to the 1st accused.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that definite allegations are made against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has criminal antecedents.

4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that she is innocent cannot be accepted. There are sufficient materials to show her involvement in the incident. A deeper probe into the B.A No.321 of 2013 :

2. matter is unwarranted at this point of time. Suffice to say that considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, the offence attributed, her role in the incident etc. and also the fact that investigation is at the initial stage, preclude this Court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN Judge ab

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Sindhu vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan