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.

Saidalavi Vs. State of Kerala

Saidalavi vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 26, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1135893

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
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Saidalavi

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....for anticipatory bail.2. if the accused had trespassed into the building after having made preparation to commit the offence, then the correct section would be 452 of ipc, the learned public prosecutor submits.3. the allegation is that when the defacto complainant was constructing the compound wall, in respect of which civil suit is pending, the accused persons trespassed into the house of the complainant and hacked the complainant with a chopper which, when warded off, b.a. no. 2080/2014 (d) -2- caused injury to the left elbow. it is stated that if the knife blow had fallen on the neck, as aimed by the accused, then the complainant would have succumbed to the injuries. further allegation is that the wife of the complainant was also attacked. damage to the tune of rs.5,000/- was caused due to criminal mischief committed by the accused.4. the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are not true. it is only because of the civil dispute pending between parties this complainant has been filed, it is submitted.5. considering all the aspects the following directions are issued: the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today. after interrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned magistrate. b.a. no. 2080/2014 (d) -3- when applied for bail by the accused, the learned magistrate will, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioners but on the following conditions: a. the petitioners shall execute a bond for rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate. if in case the magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties. b. the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE26H DAY OF MARCH20145TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 2080 of 2014 (D) ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 133/2014 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT ACCUSED(S)/APPLICANTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. SAIDALAVI AGED50YEARS S/O.RAYIN, ALAKKAL HOUSE VATTAMANNAPURAM P.O. EDATHANATTUKARA MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT2 SHAMSUDDIN AGED34YEARS S/O.RAYIN, ALAKKAL HOUSE VATTAMANNAPURAM P.O. EDATHANATTUKARA MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR SMT.M.A.SHEEBA COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2603-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JJJ N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

------------------------------------------ B.A. No. 2080 of 2014 (D) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2014 ORDER

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.133/2014 of Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad District. Offences alleged are under sections 323, 324, 427, 448 and 308 r/w 34 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

2. If the accused had trespassed into the building after having made preparation to commit the offence, then the correct section would be 452 of IPC, the learned Public Prosecutor submits.

3. The allegation is that when the defacto complainant was constructing the compound wall, in respect of which civil suit is pending, the accused persons trespassed into the house of the complainant and hacked the complainant with a chopper which, when warded off, B.A. No. 2080/2014 (D) -2- caused injury to the left elbow. It is stated that if the knife blow had fallen on the neck, as aimed by the accused, then the complainant would have succumbed to the injuries. Further allegation is that the wife of the complainant was also attacked. Damage to the tune of Rs.5,000/- was caused due to criminal mischief committed by the accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are not true. It is only because of the civil dispute pending between parties this complainant has been filed, it is submitted.

5. Considering all the aspects the following directions are issued: The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. After interrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. B.A. No. 2080/2014 (D) -3- When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate will, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioners but on the following conditions: a. The petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties. b. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders. B.A. No. 2080/2014 (D) -4- c. The petitioners shall surrender their original passports before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If they are not having any valid passport, they should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate. d. The petitioners will also file an affidavit that they will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that they will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. e. The petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate. B.A. No. 2080/2014 (D) -5- f. The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licence etc. g. The petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) each before the trial court. Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial