Ullas Mohan Vs. State of Kerala

Ullas Mohan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 30, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1015319

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/1015319
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan
Decided On: Jan 30, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ullas Mohan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the sessions court, kottayam for the very same relief. that court after elaborately considering the nature of allegations and on going through the materials found that they were not eligible to get the extraordinary jurisdiction under section 438 of cr.p.c 3.the learned counsel for the petitioner contended out that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and that he was not in the place at the relevant time. he has been falsely implicated.4. the learned public prosecutor opposed the petition.5. after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned public prosecutor and after having perused the cd it is seen that definite overt act is attributed to b.a no.358 of 2013 :2. the petitioner. the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be accepted. a further probe into the matter is unwarranted at this point of time. suffice to say that, considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, the manner in which the act committed, injuries caused to the victim, and also the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage, preclude this court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 10TH MAGHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 358 of 2013 () ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 838/2012 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION ,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT ................. PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- ULLAS MOHAN, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O MOHAN,ALACKAL HOUSE,KAPPADU, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADVS.SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SMT.SARITHA THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J ----------------------------------------- B.A No.358 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2013 ORDER

The petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.838/2012 of Kanjirappally Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 427 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

2. The petitioner along with other accused had approached the Sessions Court, Kottayam for the very same relief. That Court after elaborately considering the nature of allegations and on going through the materials found that they were not eligible to get the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended out that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and that he was not in the place at the relevant time. He has been falsely implicated.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the CD it is seen that definite overt act is attributed to B.A No.358 of 2013 :

2. the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be accepted. A further probe into the matter is unwarranted at this point of time. Suffice to say that, considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, the manner in which the act committed, injuries caused to the victim, and also the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage, preclude this Court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. The petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN Judge ab

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