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.

Seethamma Vs. State of Kerala

Seethamma vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 26, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1017587

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
Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

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

Motor Vehicles

Key legal issue
Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Seethamma

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice s.s.satheesachandran friday, the 26th day of july 2013 4th sravana, 1935 bail appl..no. 5168 of 2013 () ----------------------------------------- crime no. 438/2013 of parippally police station , kollam .......... petitioner(s): ---------------------- 1. seethamma, aged 4 years w/o.rajagopal, parameswara vilasom (puthen vila) karimpaloor cherry, kalluvathukkal village kollam district.2. rajagopal ,aged 4 years h/o.seethamma, parameswara vilasom (puthen vila) karimpaloor cherry, kalluvathukkal village kollam district. by adv. sri.v.venugopalan nair respondent: ---------------------- 1. state of kerala, represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam.2. the sub inspector of police parippally police station, kollam district. by public prosecutor smt.r.rema this bail application having come up for admission on 26-07-2013, the court on the same day passed the following: tss s.s.satheesachandran, j.------------------------------- b.a.no.5168 of 201.() -------------------------------- dated this the 26th day of july, 2013 order ~~~~~~~ previous application (b.a.no.3105/2013) moved by petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail had been dismissed. treatment certificate of second petitioner, who is stated to be a chronic diabetic patient, was not produced with the previous application, is the plea now made for entertaining the present petition for the discretionary relief. i do not find any merit in the cause so shown for entertaining the present petition. petition is not entertainable, and it is rejected. sd/- s.s.satheesachandran judge ps/26/7 //true copy// pa to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2013 4TH SRAVANA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 5168 of 2013 () ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 438/2013 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM .......... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SEETHAMMA, AGED 4 YEARS W/O.RAJAGOPAL, PARAMESWARA VILASOM (PUTHEN VILA) KARIMPALOOR CHERRY, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2. RAJAGOPAL ,AGED 4 YEARS H/O.SEETHAMMA, PARAMESWARA VILASOM (PUTHEN VILA) KARIMPALOOR CHERRY, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------- B.A.No.5168 OF 201.() -------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2013 ORDER

~~~~~~~ Previous application (B.A.No.3105/2013) moved by petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail had been dismissed. Treatment certificate of second petitioner, who is stated to be a chronic diabetic patient, was not produced with the previous application, is the plea now made for entertaining the present petition for the discretionary relief. I do not find any merit in the cause so shown for entertaining the present petition. Petition is not entertainable, and it is rejected. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE ps/26/7 //True copy// PA to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial