Prince Vs. State of Kerala

Prince vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 30, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1015335

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/1015335
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

Prince

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....b.a. no. 311 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 30th day of january, 2013. order the petitioners are accused in crime no. 936 of 2012 of kunnikode police station, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 465 and 468 read with section 34 i.p.c.2. the dispute relates to the purchase of property and the petitioners were alleged to have cheated the defacto complainant.3. the petitioners would say that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. they would say that they have not committed any act which would constitute an offence.4. learned public prosecutor opposed the application and points out that investigation is at an infant stage. b.a.311/2013”5. after having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor and having perused the cd, the claim of the petitioners that they are innocent cannot be accepted as of now. there are materials to show the involvement of the petitioners. what actually are the offences or whether the allegations are true are not matters to be considered at this point of time.6. the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners, the consequence of their etc. and also the fact that investigation is at an infant stage precludes this court from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. this application is accordingly dismissed. however, if the petitioners are so advised, they may surrender before the investigating officer on or before 6.2.2013, who, after interrogation shall b.a.311/2013. 3 produce them before the jfcm court concerned, which court, on applications for bail being moved by the petitioners, may dispose of the same in accordance with law preferably on the same day itself. p. bhavadasan, judge sb.

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. 311 of 2013 () ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 936/2012 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT ------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------ 1. PRINCE, 32 YEARS, KALEEKKAL HOUSE, KARYARA, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2. DICHU MARIAMMA JACOB, 26 YEARS, KALEEKKAL HOUSE, KARYARA VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

3. GRACY BABY, 55 YEARS, KALEEKKAL HOUSE, KARYARA, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

4. BLESSY MOLE, 30 YEARS, KALEEKKAL HOUSE, KARYARA, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J.

SAM RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ”

031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P. BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 311 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of January, 2013. ORDER The petitioners are accused in Crime No. 936 of 2012 of Kunnikode Police Station, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

2. The dispute relates to the purchase of property and the petitioners were alleged to have cheated the defacto complainant.

3. The petitioners would say that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. They would say that they have not committed any act which would constitute an offence.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and points out that investigation is at an infant stage. B.A.311/2013”

5. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the CD, the claim of the petitioners that they are innocent cannot be accepted as of now. There are materials to show the involvement of the petitioners. What actually are the offences or whether the allegations are true are not matters to be considered at this point of time.

6. The nature of the offence committed by the petitioners, the consequence of their etc. and also the fact that investigation is at an infant stage precludes this court from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. This application is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioners are so advised, they may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 6.2.2013, who, after interrogation shall B.A.311/2013. 3 produce them before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on applications for bail being moved by the petitioners, may dispose of the same in accordance with law preferably on the same day itself. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.

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