Aji Vs. State of Kerala

Aji vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 30, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1015334

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/1015334
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

Aji

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....1st accused in crime no.2069/2012 of kottiyam police station for having committed offences punishable under sections 452, 379, 324, 294(b) and 427 r/w section 34 of ipc.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that on 17.1.2012 at about 6 pm. the petitioner along with other accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, destroyed the household articles and caused injuries to the defacto complainant.3. the petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and has been made with an oblique motive.4. the learned public prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that the facts have been narrated in the petition. it is also pointed out that the investigation is at the initial stage and pre-arrest bail may not be granted to the petitioner.5. after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned public prosecutor and perusing the b.a no.60 of 2013 :2. records the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent does not appear to be true. the records show that the petitioner has involved in the incident. it is also seen that that the petitioner had attacked the defacto complainant with iron rod and he had suffered injuries.6. suffice to say that, considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, the manner in which acts 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 petitioner. the petition is dismissed. however, if so advised, the petitioner may surrender before the investigating officer on or before 7.2.2013, who after interrogation, shall produce him before the jfcm court concerned. if the petitioner moves an application for regular bail before the said court, the learned magistrate shall consider and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, if possible on the same day itself. 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. 60 of 2013 (A) --------------------------------------- [CRIME NO. 2069/2012 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT] .............. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------ AJI, AGED 3 YEARS, MAMANDIRAM,VETTILATHAZHAM, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM ”

031.

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION,KOLLAM ”

004. 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: Prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J ----------------------------------------- B.A No.60 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2013 ORDER

The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.2069/2012 of Kottiyam Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 379, 324, 294(b) and 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 17.1.2012 at about 6 pm. the petitioner along with other accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, destroyed the household articles and caused injuries to the defacto complainant.

3. The petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and has been made with an oblique motive.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that the facts have been narrated in the petition. It is also pointed out that the investigation is at the initial stage and pre-arrest bail may not be granted to the petitioner.

5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and perusing the B.A No.60 of 2013 :

2. records the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent does not appear to be true. The records show that the petitioner has involved in the incident. It is also seen that that the petitioner had attacked the defacto complainant with iron rod and he had suffered injuries.

6. Suffice to say that, considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, the manner in which acts 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 petitioner. The petition is dismissed. However, if so advised, the petitioner may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 7.2.2013, who after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM Court concerned. If the petitioner moves an application for regular bail before the said court, the learned Magistrate shall consider and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, if possible on the same day itself. P.BHAVADASAN Judge ab

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