Ajikumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 11, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1281363

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/1281363
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice C.S. Sudha
Decided On: Apr 11, 2025
Case Number: CRL.A/666/2025
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

Ajikumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....thiruvananthapuram, whereby the counter petitioners in the mc, who are the sureties of the accused have been directed to pay penalty of ₹50,000/- each.2. it is submitted by the learned counsel for theappellants/counter petitioners that the appellants/counter petitioners were unaware of the proceedings and hence the reason why they were unable to appear before the court. the accused for whom they were appearing as sureties has surrendered before the court and therefore a lenient view may be taken and the penalty amount may be reduced.3. the request is opposed by the learned public prosecutor.4. heard both sides.5. on going through the impugned order, it is seen thatnotice was issued to the appellants/counter petitioners which was also served on them. but, they never turned up before the trial court and hence the reason why the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order. i do not find any infirmity as such in the impugned order. however, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is modified and the appellants are directed to pay penalty amount of ₹25,000/- each within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. sd/- c.s.sudha judge np

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2023 IN MC NO.115/2022 IN SC NO.1833/2021 OF SPECIAL JUDGE COURT FOR TRIAL OF SC/ST CASES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/SURETY NOS.1 AND 2: 1 AJIKUMAR AGED 62 YEARS S/O APPUKKUTTAN PILLAI, KRISHNA BHAVAN, CHITTATTUMUKKU P O, KADINAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695301 2 SANTHI L AGED 60 YEARS W/O PRASANNAN, SANTHI NIVAS, PUKAYILATHOPU, KORANI P O, EDAKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695104 BY ADV M.ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695304 SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.S.SUDHA, J.
Crl. Appeal No.666 of 2025 Dated this the 11th day of April 2025

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is against the order dated 22/03/2023 in MC No.115/2022 in SC No.1833/2021 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby the counter petitioners in the MC, who are the sureties of the accused have been directed to pay penalty of ₹50,000/- each.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants/counter petitioners that the appellants/counter petitioners were unaware of the proceedings and hence the reason why they were unable to appear before the court. The accused for whom they were appearing as sureties has surrendered before the court and therefore a lenient view may be taken and the penalty amount may be reduced.

3. The request is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Heard both sides.

5. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that

notice was issued to the appellants/counter petitioners which was also served on them. But, they never turned up before the trial court and hence the reason why the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity as such in the impugned order. However, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is modified and the appellants are directed to pay penalty amount of ₹25,000/- each within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- C.S.SUDHA JUDGE NP

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2025 Same Parties Ajikumar vs State of Kerala Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice C.S. Sudha