Ramesh Vs. Elbin

Ramesh vs Elbin

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 14, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1128995

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/1128995
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice M.L.Joseph Francis
Decided On: Feb 14, 2014
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh

Respondent

Elbin

Excerpt

.....- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 14th day of february 2014 order the petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 6 in crime no.118 of 2014 on the file of the chalakudy police station. the first respondent is the de-facto complainant in the above case. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 143, 147,148, 341, 323, 324, 308 of the indian penal code (for short 'the ipc') read with section 149 of the ipc. the allegation is that the de-facto complainant belongs to the cpim party and the petitioners/accused belong to bjp party. on 14.1.2014, at about 23.45 hrs. the complainant and his friends went to kottai unnickal bhagavathi temple, elinjipra bail application no.923 of 2014 :2: near chalakudy to watch the mega show conducted in connection with the temple festival. a dispute arose between the team of the complainant and accused, and the accused attacked him with stone and iron road and the complainant suffered injuries. the complainant was admitted in the st.james hospital, chalakudy and on the basis of the first information statement of the first respondent, a crime was registered on the files of chalakudy police station against the petitioners alleging offences under 143, 147,148, 341, 323, 324, 308 of the ipc read with section 149 of the ipc.3. the learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and that the first respondent has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that the arrest and detention of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of the investigation. hence this bail application is allowed. bail application no.923 of 2014 :3: it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the above case, they shall be released on bail on executing bond for `25,000/- each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE14H DAY OF FEBRUARY201425TH MAGHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 923 of 2014 () ------------------------------ CRIME NO. 118/2014 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION , TRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED1TO6 -------------------------------------------- 1. RAMESH.P.P., AGED44YEARS S/O.PONNAN, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, ELINJIPRA VIA CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT680724.

2. KIRAN.P.S., AGED21YEARS S/O.SAROJINI, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, NATARANGADI, VIA CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT680721 3. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED53YEARS S/O.SANKARAN, VELLAMBARAMBIL HOUSE, NAYARANGADI KODASSERRY, VIA CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISRICT680721.

4. SUMESH.R.S., AGED34YEARS S/O.SUBRAN, RAIPARAMBAN HOUSE, ELINJIPRA VIA CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT680724.

5. DHANIN @ DHANIL, AGED26YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN, VADAKKINEDATH HOUSE, ELINJIPRA VIA CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT680724.

6. SANOJ.K.M @ MANIKUTTAN, AGED24YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN, KAYYALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA VIA CHALAKUDY, THRSSUR DISTRICT680693 BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. ELBIN, S/O.ABRAHAM, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, NAYARANGADY KODASSERY, VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT680721 (DEFACTO COMPLAINT) 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682031.

3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL R1 BY ADV. SRI.JAYAN KUTTICHAKKU R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT T LALIZA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1402- 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bail Application No.923 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of February 2014 ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.118 of 2014 on the file of the Chalakudy Police Station. The first respondent is the de-facto complainant in the above case. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147,148, 341, 323, 324, 308 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') read with Section 149 of the IPC. The allegation is that the de-facto complainant belongs to the CPIM party and the petitioners/accused belong to BJP party. On 14.1.2014, at about 23.45 hrs. the complainant and his friends went to Kottai Unnickal Bhagavathi Temple, Elinjipra Bail Application No.923 of 2014 :2: near Chalakudy to watch the Mega Show conducted in connection with the temple festival. A dispute arose between the team of the complainant and accused, and the accused attacked him with stone and iron road and the complainant suffered injuries. The complainant was admitted in the St.James Hospital, Chalakudy and on the basis of the first information statement of the first respondent, a crime was registered on the files of Chalakudy Police Station against the petitioners alleging offences under 143, 147,148, 341, 323, 324, 308 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and that the first respondent has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the arrest and detention of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of the investigation. Hence this bail application is allowed. Bail Application No.923 of 2014 :3: It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the above case, they shall be released on bail on executing bond for `25,000/- each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting arrest. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. It is made clear that if the petitioners surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate having jurisdiction, within 30 days from today, they shall be released on bail on executing bond for `25,000/- each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate. In that case also, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. Sd/ M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/ // TRUE COPY //

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Ramesh vs Elbin Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice M.L.Joseph Francis