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.

Shihabudeen Vs. State of Kerala

Shihabudeen vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 11, 2010
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/908940

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.7118 of 2010
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

[K. L. MANJUNATH; B.MANOHAR JJ.] This RFA is filed u/s. 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dt.1.6.2006 passed in o.s.no.146/2003 on the file of the civil judge (Sr.dn), Holenarasipura, decreeing the suit for compensation.

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shihabudeen

Advocate SRI.C.RAJENDRAN, Adv.

Respondent

State of Kerala

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i)

Excerpt

[k. l. manjunath; b.manohar jj.] this rfa is filed u/s. 96 of cpc against the judgment and decree dt.1.6.2006 passed in o.s.no.146/2003 on the file of the civil judge (sr.dn), holenarasipura, decreeing the suit for compensation.v.ramkumar, j.bail application no.7118 of 2010dated this the 11th day of november, 2010order1. the petitioner, who is the accused in crime no.81 of 2006 of pooyappally police station for offences punishable under sections 341, 294(b), 323 & 506(i) i.p.c., seeks anticipatory bail. 2. consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner in c.c.no.880 of 2006 on the file of the judicial magistrate of the first class, kottarakkara the case against the petitioner has been transferred to the long pending case register as l.p.no.37 of 2009. admittedly, non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner. anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. there is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the magistrate 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 against the petitioner and also after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner for his previous non-appearance. 3. with the above observation this application is disposed of.

Full Judgment

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

Bail Application No.7118 of 2010

Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010

ORDER

1. The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.81 of 2006 of Pooyappally Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 & 506(i) I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.880 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kottarakkara the case against the petitioner has been transferred to the Long Pending Case Register as L.P.No.37 of 2009. Admittedly, non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the Magistrate 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 against the petitioner and also after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner for his previous non-appearance.

3. 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