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.

Thankappan, Vs. State of Kerala

Thankappan, vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 26, 2010
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907441

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
Case Number
Bail Appl..No. 6287 of 2010
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 504, 506; Code Of Criminal procedure (CRPC), 1973 - Sections 394, 161. - Punishment for murder -- The accused Hari Singh of village Suthari was running a brick kiln on the outskirts of the village. Subsequently, one Randhir Singh installed another brick kiln nearby. ...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 439 ; Kerala Abkari Act - Sections 8(1), 8(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thankappan,

Advocate SRI.S.RAJEEV, Adv.

Respondent

State of Kerala

Legal References

Acts
Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 439 ; Kerala Abkari Act - Sections 8(1), 8(2)

Excerpt

indian penal code (ipc), 1860 - sections 302, 34, 504, 506; code of criminal procedure (crpc), 1973 - sections 394, 161. - punishment for murder -- the accused hari singh of village suthari was running a brick kiln on the outskirts of the village. subsequently, one randhir singh installed another brick kiln nearby. hari singh and his brothers, however, did not allow randhir singh to run his brick kiln effectively and ultimately randhir singh sold his brick kiln to gulab singh deceased some three months prior to the incident. sub-inspector hari raj singh, however, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after inspecting the site, prepared the site plan ex. ka.14. the prosecution in support of its case relied primarily on the evidence of pw1 prem pal, pw-5 kalu and pw-6 jagdish, pw-2 dr. m.k.goel, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body, and of pw-7 sub-inspector hari raj singh, the main investigating officer. point "a" in the site plan is the place where the deceased gulab singh had been shot and killed. o r d e rv.ramkumar, j. ---------------------------------------------- bail application no.6287 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ dated this the 26th day of october, 2010 order 1. in this petition filed under section 439 cr.p.c. the petitioner who is the sole accused in cr.no.57 of 2009 of excise range office, udumbanchola for offences punishable under sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the kerala abkari act for allegedly having been found in possession of 4.800 litres of arrack, seeks his enlargement on bail. 2. the learned public prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that the petitioner is involved in three other cases of similar nature. 3. it is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that he has been falsely implicated in the case. moreover, i am not satisfied that both the grounds enumerated under section 41a (b)(ii) of the abkari act are present in this case so as to justify his release on bail. with the above observation this application is dismissed.

Full Judgment

O R D E R

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

----------------------------------------------

Bail Application No.6287 of 2010

------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010

ORDER

1. In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in CR.No.57 of 2009 of Excise Range Office, Udumbanchola for offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of 4.800 litres of arrack, seeks his enlargement on bail.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that the petitioner is involved in three other cases of similar nature.

3. It is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Moreover, I am not satisfied that both the grounds enumerated under Section 41A (b)(ii) of the Abkari Act are present in this case so as to justify his release on bail.

With the above observation this Application is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial