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.

Maya Vs. State of Kerala

Maya vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 29, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1099561

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

Maya

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....under section 379 read with section 34 of ipc.2. the allegation against petitioners is that on 1.10.2013 at about5 8.45 p.m., they, in furtherance of their common intention, tried to deprive of the gold ring weighing sovereign and 600/- of the defacto complainant and they were got red handed.3. petitioners say that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. at any rate, according to them, they have been in custody from 01.10.2013 onwards and their continued custody is unnecessary. b.a. no. 7961/2013 -2- 4. the learned public prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the petitioners are persons who have no fixed place of residence and they hail from another state. if they are released on bail, they may not be available for trial.5. even though there may be some substance in the submissions made by the learned public prosecutor, the fact remains that the articles that was attempted to steel was only meagre. petitioners have been in custody from 01.10.2013 onwards. the apprehension that they may not be available for trial can be taken care of by imposing adequate conditions. the petition is allowed as follows: i) petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of ` 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ii) the court concerned shall ensure the identity of b.a. no. 7961/2013 -3- the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. sureties shall be from the local area. iii) petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on every wednesday between 9 am and 10 am until further orders. iv) petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. v) petitioners shall not leave the state of kerala without prior permission of the court concerned. vi) if any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE29H DAY OF NOVEMBER20138TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 7961 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 603/2013 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT --------------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. MAYA, AGED29 D/O.MARIMUTHU, MELOOR COLONY, MADURA COIMBATORE.

2. SATHYA, AGED27 D/O.RAJAMMA, MELOOR COLONY, MADURA COIMBATORE.

3. PANJAMA, AGED29 W/O.BHARATHAN, MELOOR COLONY, MADURA COIMBATORE4 MANJU, AGED30 D/O.MARIMUTHU, MELOOR COLONY, MADURA COIMBATORE BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SMT.V.P.SATHI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2911-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No.7961 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of November, 2013 ORDER

Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 603 of 2013 of Nadakkavu Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The allegation against petitioners is that on 1.10.2013 at about5 8.45 p.m., they, in furtherance of their common intention, tried to deprive of the gold ring weighing sovereign and 600/- of the defacto complainant and they were got red handed.

3. Petitioners say that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. At any rate, according to them, they have been in custody from 01.10.2013 onwards and their continued custody is unnecessary. B.A. No. 7961/2013 -2- 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the petitioners are persons who have no fixed place of residence and they hail from another state. If they are released on bail, they may not be available for trial.

5. Even though there may be some substance in the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the fact remains that the articles that was attempted to steel was only meagre. Petitioners have been in custody from 01.10.2013 onwards. The apprehension that they may not be available for trial can be taken care of by imposing adequate conditions. The petition is allowed as follows: i) Petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of ` 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. ii) The court concerned shall ensure the identity of B.A. No. 7961/2013 -3- the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. Sureties shall be from the local area. iii) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 am and 10 am until further orders. iv) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. v) Petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the court concerned. vi) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled and the court concerned may take such steps as are available to it in accordance with law. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial