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.

Ajmal Vs. State of Kerala

Ajmal vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 09, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1089020

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajmal

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....and 506(ii) read with 149 of indian penal code. he has filed the above application seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure (for short 'the code').2. occurrence allegedly took place on 27.6.2013 at about 4 p.m. de facto complainant while droving a jeep through a public road, it is alleged, did not give side to the motor vehicle coming from behind, in which accused persons travelled. overtaking the jeep it was stopped blocking by the vehicle of accused. accused then got down from their vehicle, and, all of them conjointly assaulted de facto complainant, is the allegation. one among the b.a.no.5717/2013 2 accused persons allegedly struck him with a stone on his face causing injury to one of his eardrums, is the further allegation. investigation over the crime is now in progress and, at this stage, petitioner has applied for pre-arrest bail.3. i heard learned counsel for petitioner and also learned public prosecutor. allegations imputed against the accused, particularly, against petitioner are totally false, is the submission of his counsel. he has been falsely implicated in the crime, is the further submission of counsel to urge for granting him the discretionary relief. opposing the application learned public prosecutor submitted that the materials gathered during investigation reveal complicity of petitioner and also co-accused in the grave offences alleged.4. case diary has been produced for my perusal. after looking into the materials covered by case diary with reference to the submissions made by counsel on both sides, i find arrest and custodial interrogation of petitioner b.a.no.5717/2013 3 as such may not be required for a fair investigation of crime. de facto complainant has imputed of a conjoint assault by all the accused persons; one among them striking him with a stone and others striking different parts of his person and causing him injuries. however, his wound certificate discloses only of complaints made by him over.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE9H DAY OF SEPTEMBER201318TH BHADRA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 5717 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 156/2013 OF KOORANCHUNDU POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3.: -------------------- AJMAL, AGED24YEARS, S/O.AZEEZ, VADAKKEYIL HOUSE, KOORACHUNDU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SRI.SASIDHARAN KOLATHAYI SMT.B.SHAMEERA RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOORANCHUNDU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.LALIZA.T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0909-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------- B.A.No.5717 OF2013() -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September, 2013 ORDER

~~~~~~~ Petitioner is one among the accused (A3) in Crime No.156 of 2013 of Koorachundu Police Station, Kozhikode District registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. He has filed the above application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code').

2. Occurrence allegedly took place on 27.6.2013 at about 4 p.m. De facto complainant while droving a jeep through a public road, it is alleged, did not give side to the motor vehicle coming from behind, in which accused persons travelled. Overtaking the jeep it was stopped blocking by the vehicle of accused. Accused then got down from their vehicle, and, all of them conjointly assaulted de facto complainant, is the allegation. One among the B.A.No.5717/2013 2 accused persons allegedly struck him with a stone on his face causing injury to one of his eardrums, is the further allegation. Investigation over the crime is now in progress and, at this stage, petitioner has applied for pre-arrest bail.

3. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and also learned Public Prosecutor. Allegations imputed against the accused, particularly, against petitioner are totally false, is the submission of his counsel. He has been falsely implicated in the crime, is the further submission of counsel to urge for granting him the discretionary relief. Opposing the application learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials gathered during investigation reveal complicity of petitioner and also co-accused in the grave offences alleged.

4. Case Diary has been produced for my perusal. After looking into the materials covered by Case Diary with reference to the submissions made by counsel on both sides, I find arrest and custodial interrogation of petitioner B.A.No.5717/2013 3 as such may not be required for a fair investigation of crime. De facto complainant has imputed of a conjoint assault by all the accused persons; one among them striking him with a stone and others striking different parts of his person and causing him injuries. However, his wound certificate discloses only of complaints made by him over the injury suffered to his eardrum, with no external injuries noted by Doctor. In such circumstances, I find petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail with direction to co-operate with the investigation. I make it clear that the observation made above shall be treated as having been made only for disposal of this petition and it shall have no bearing in the investigation of crime nor in the trial of the case. Petition is disposed with the following directions: Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer at 10.00 a.m. on 13.9.2013. On such appearance, after his interrogation, in the event of his arrest in the crime, he shall be released on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with one B.A.No.5717/2013 4 solvent surety for the like sum. He shall report before the investigating officer later also, if so demanded, for smooth completion of investigation. He has to co-operate with the investigation. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE ps/10/9 //True copy// PA to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial