Kerala Court November 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
JayakrishnA.R. Vs. Harilal.N.K.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.W.P.(Cri) No. 442 of 2010-SDated this the 16th day of November, 20101. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce `Anjali Lal' - a young woman aged above 30 years (date of birth - 25/2/1980). She is a B.Tch. graduate. She was employed earlier. She is not employed now. 2. According to the petitioner, he and the alleged detenu - Anjali Lal, were known to each other. They have decided to get married. The proposal for marriage does not have the approval of the relatives of the alleged detenue. The 1st respondent is the father and the 2nd respondent is the sister of the alleged detenue. The petitioner alleged that the alleged detenue Anjali Lal is under the illegal confinement and detention of respondents 1 and 2. He hence came to this Court with this petition on 10/11/10. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We perused the records. We are not satisfied that s...
Rafi Aboobacker,s/O.Aboobacker and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No. 7268 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010O R D E R1. In this Petition filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. of 1222 of 2010 of Pathanapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498(A) I.P.C. seek anticipatory bail. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the relative conduct of the parties, the nature of the injury sustained and the other circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to release the petitioners on bail for a period of one month in the event of their arrest in connection with the above case on each of them executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the l...
Ravi and anr.Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No. 7263 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010ORDER1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 5 of 2010 of Vandanpathal Forest Station, Erumely Range for offences punishable under Sections 2(2), 2(16), 2(32), 2(36), 2(37), 9, 39, 40, 50, 51 and 49 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 27.11.2010 or on 29.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfied that t...
Puthiyapurayil Janaki Vs. the Station House Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V.RAMKUMAR, J.Bail Application No.6940 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010ORDER1. In this Petition filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.312 of 2010 of Vellarikundu Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Kerala Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of 2 litres of arrack, seeks her enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 26/09/2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application submitting inter alia that the petitioner is involved in yet another Abkari crime in which four litres of arrack were seized. 3. It is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that she has been falsely implicated in the case. Moreover, I am not satisfied that both the grounds enumerated under Sec.41A (b)(ii) of the Abkari Act are present in this case so as to justify her release on bail. 4. With the above observation this Application is dismissed. ...
LenIn and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No.6815 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010ORDER1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 472 of 2010 of Nedupuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 415, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 27.11.2010 or on 29.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the pol...
Jainis, S/O.James and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J. B.A. No.7190 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010ORDER1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 477 of 2010 of Erumeli Police Station for offences punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 29.11.2010 or on 30.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfied that the petitioners have ...
George Paul and ors. Vs. Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V.RAMKUMAR, J.Bail Application No.7255 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010ORDER1. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.3, 4 & 6 in Crime No.315 of 2010 of Kodencherry Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 & 326 read with Section 149 I.P.C., seek their enlargement on bail. The petitioners were arrested on 01/11/2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that altogether three persons were injured in the occurrence and one of them sustained fracture of left parietal bone. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioners, the sentiments of the near relatives of the victim and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioners are released on bail, they will definitely influence and intimidate the pr...
Kishore Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No. 7249 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010.ORDER1. Petitioner who is the 2nd accused in O.R. No. 39 of 2010 of Anchal Forest Range for offences punishable under Sections 2(2), 2(16), 2(32), 2 (36), 2(37), 39, 50 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and Sections 27(1) (e)(IV) of the Kerala Forest Act, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 27.11.2010 or on 29.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfied that the...
Raju @ Rajesh, S/O.Balan.C Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.Bail Application No. 7233 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010.O R D E R1. In this Petition filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.665 of 2010 of Nileshwar Police Station for an offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of 5.250 litres of Indian made foreign liquor seeks anticipatory Bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case involving such grave offence. It is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 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 concerned within two weeks from today and files an application for regular bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is ...
Saleena Vs. Sabjan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.O.P(F.C) No.748 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 20101. The short prayer of the petitioner is that O.P.No.470 of 2010, pending before the Family Court, Kollam, may be ordered to be advanced and expeditiously disposed of. Has the petitioner filed any application to that effect before the Family Court? Admittedly the petitioner has not. Without and before making such a request before the Family Court, we find no merit in the attempt of the petitioner to run to this Court with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the Family Court, Kollam, for an out of turn expeditious disposal of O.P.No.470 of 2010. The Family Court must consider such application, if any filed, on merits and pass appropriate orders.3. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned co...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »