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.

Manju Vs. State of Kerala

Manju vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 26, 2010
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907457

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 Application No.6707 of 2010
Subject
Excise

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
Excise
Acts & sections
Abkari Act - Section 55(i)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manju

Advocate SRI.C.RAJENDRAN, Adv.

Respondent

State of Kerala

Legal References

Acts
Abkari Act - Section 55(i)

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.6707 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- dated: 26th day of october, 2010 o r d e r petitioner, who is the sole accused in crime no.114/2009 of karunagappally excise range for an offence punishable under section 55(i) of the abkari act i of 1077, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case involving such a grave offence. there is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the magistrate concerned and seek regular bail. accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the magistrate and files an application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed notwithstanding the pendency of non-bailable warrants of arrest, if any, against the petitioner. with the above observation this application is disposed of .

Full Judgment

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

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

Bail Application No.6707 of 2010

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

DATED: 26th day of October, 2010

O R D E R

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.114/2009 of Karunagappally Excise Range for an offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act I of 1077, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case involving such a grave offence. There is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate and files an application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed notwithstanding the pendency of non-bailable warrants of arrest, if any, against the petitioner.

With the above observation this application is disposed of .

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial