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.

Uthaman Vs. State of Kerala

Uthaman vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 28, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1095835

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

Uthaman

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....no.918 of 2013 of the varappuzha police station for the offences punishable under sections 324, 341, 294(b), 427 and 326 r/w section 34 of the indian penal code. allegation is that on 04-09-2013 at 10.15 p.m the petitioners assaulted with the defacto complainant and attempted to assault his brother who were going on a motor cycle, damaged the motor cycle and caused loss of around rs. 15,000/- to the defacto complainant.2. learned public prosecutor has submitted that the iron rod (allegedly) is recovered.3. learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true and that there was a dispute between the petitioners and others regarding right of way the following partition of the properties.4. it is seen that the petitioners are identified by the defacto complainant even at the time of the alleged incident. hence custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary. b.a.nos.6818 & 6819 of 2013 2 hence i am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to the conditions and protecting interest of the defacto complainant as well. resultantly, this applications are allowed as under: a) petitioners/accused nos. 1 and 2 directed to appear before the officer investigating crime no.918 of 2013 of the varappuzha police station on 04-11-2013 at 10 a.m for interrogation. b) if interrogation of the petitioners is not completed that day, they shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time directed by him which the petitioners shall comply. c) petitioners shall co-operate with investigating of the case. d) in case arrest of the petitioners is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on the same day. e) on such production the petitioners shall be released on bail in crime no.918 of 2013 of the varappuzha police b.a.nos.6818 & 6819 of 2013 3 station on their executing bond of rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE28H DAYOF OCTOBER20136TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 6818 of 2013 ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 918/2013 OF VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM ... PETITIONER:ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- UTHAMAN, AGED51YEARS, S/O.LATE SIVARAMAN, VELLITHEDATHU, KADAMAKUDI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2810-2013 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.6819/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.6818 & 6819 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2013 ORDER

These applications are preferred by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, in Crime No.918 of 2013 of the Varappuzha Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 294(b), 427 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation is that on 04-09-2013 at 10.15 p.m the petitioners assaulted with the defacto complainant and attempted to assault his brother who were going on a motor cycle, damaged the motor cycle and caused loss of around Rs. 15,000/- to the defacto complainant.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the iron rod (allegedly) is recovered.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true and that there was a dispute between the petitioners and others regarding right of way the following partition of the properties.

4. It is seen that the petitioners are identified by the defacto complainant even at the time of the alleged incident. Hence custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary. B.A.Nos.6818 & 6819 of 2013 2 Hence I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to the conditions and protecting interest of the defacto complainant as well. Resultantly, this applications are allowed as under: a) Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 directed to appear before the officer investigating Crime No.918 of 2013 of the Varappuzha Police Station on 04-11-2013 at 10 a.m for interrogation. b) If interrogation of the petitioners is not completed that day, they shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time directed by him which the petitioners shall comply. c) Petitioners shall co-operate with investigating of the case. d) In case arrest of the petitioners is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on the same day. e) On such production the petitioners shall be released on bail in Crime No.918 of 2013 of the Varappuzha Police B.A.Nos.6818 & 6819 of 2013 3 Station on their executing bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioners shall deposit of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) each in a Nationalized Bank in their respective names for a period of two years (renewable as per order of the learned magistrate) and produce the FD receipts before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond. 2) In case the case is decided against the petitioner and compensation is awarded to the defacto complainat. Such compensation can be realized from the amount in deposit. 3) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating the case on every alternate Saturday between 10 a.m and 12 p.m for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. 4) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation. 5) Petitioners shall not, during the period of this bail B.A.Nos.6818 & 6819 of 2013 4 get involved in any offence. 6) In case any of the above conditions is violated, bail granted hereby is liable to be cancelled for which the investigating officer may move application before the learned magistrate as held in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC100. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE AS

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial