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.

Joy. Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police.

Joy. vs The Sub Inspector of Police.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 17, 2010
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917111

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. 8492 of 2010
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

[MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY, J.] This writ PETITION is filed under articles '226 and 227 of constitution of India with a prayer to direct the R3 & 4 to consider the request of petitioner for issue of registration CERTIFICATE (FORM no. 10) and effect the khata in his name by entering his name BY entering his name i...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Joy.

Advocate SRI.K.B.GANGESH, Adv.

Respondent

The Sub Inspector of Police.

Legal References

Reported In
ILR2010(4)Ker143

Excerpt

[mr. justice l.narayana swamy, j.] this writ petition is filed under articles '226 and 227 of constitution of india with a prayer to direct the r3 & 4 to consider the request of petitioner for issue of registration certificate (form no. 10) and effect the khata in his name by entering his name by entering his name in k.r. and rfc as the owner/occupant in respect of land bearing sy.no.78 measuring 15 acres situated at sonnenahalli village. hesaraghatta hobli. bangalore north taluk bangalore and etc.1. petitioner who is the accused in c.c. no. 1335 of 2003 on the file of judicial first class magistrate, irinjalakuda, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner in c.c. no. 1335 of 2003 on the file of judicial first class magistrate, irinjalakuda, and the case against the petitioner has been transferred to the long pending case register as l.p.r. no.115 of 2008. 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.

Full Judgment

1. Petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 1335 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner in C.C. No. 1335 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, and the case against the petitioner has been transferred to the Long Pending Case Register as L.P.R. No.115 of 2008. 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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial