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.
Rajan, S/O.Sahadevan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V.RAMKUMAR, J.Bail Application No.7282 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.507 of 2010 of Vilappilsala Police Station for an offence punishable under Sec.8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of 13 litres of arrack, seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 18/10/2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application submitting inter alia that the petitioner is involved in yet another Abkari offence. 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 Sec.41A (b)(ii) of the Abkari Act are present in this case so as to justify his release on bail. 4. With the above observation this Application is dismissed. ...
V.K.Ranadeve Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No. 7251 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010.ORDER1. Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 1016 of 2010 of Chavakkad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 427 I.P.C., 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. After interrogation, petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate concerned who on being convinced that the petitioner has been interrogated by the police, shall release the petitioner on bail on t...
Anu Sivan and ors. Vs. Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No.7231 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010ORDER1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime No. 705 of 2010 of Nooraanaadu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 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 police shall consider and...
Dinesan.K.U Vs. Preethi.C.S
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.O.P.(FC) No. 731 of 2010-RDated this the 16th day of November, 20101. The spouses are the parties. Claim for maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. has been pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam from 2009. An application for interim maintenance was also filed. The same was also pending from 24/9/09. 2. Marriage is admitted. The contention raised is that on disposal of an item of property belonging to the husband, a lump sum amount has been paid to the wife. No documents were produced to support that plea. There is no contention that the wife is employed or has any independent source of income. The wife asserted that the husband has employment and income. The husband denied the same. In these circumstances, the court below proceeded to issue the impugned direction to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem with effect from 24/9/09 i.e., the date of petition. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The petitio...
Shiju Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No. 7238 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010.ORDER1. Petitioner who is the 1st accused in Crime No. 516 of 2010 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 324, 354 and 308 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., 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 petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall conside...
Mithin,s/O.Chandran Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V.RAMKUMAR, J.Bail Application No.7277 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010ORDER1. The petitioner, who is accused No.2 in Crime No.578 of 2010 of Pothencode Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 324 & 307 I.P.C. and Sec.27 of Arms Act, seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 19/10/2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that there are two persons injured in the occurrence and they were attacked with sword and chopper resulting in one of them sustaining fracture of right forearm. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioner, 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 petitioner is released on bail, he will definite...
Dr.G.Rajasekharan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.W.P.(C) No.31483 OF 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 20101. The petitioner while working as principal of the Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, certain proceedings were initiated against him on certain allegations of misconduct. Subsequently, by Ext.P10 order, the petitioner has been transferred to Law College, Ernakulam. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order in this writ petition. However, the petitioner now submits that he would be presently satisfied with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 representation filed in this regard expeditiously.2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Government also.3. Having heard both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of...
Chingoli Rajan @ Sivarajan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.Bail Application No. 7099 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.64 of 2010 of Karunagapally Excise Range for an offence punishable under section 8(1), 8(2) & 67(B) of the Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of 1 = litres of arrack 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 filed beari...
Vamadevan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No. 6999 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010ORDER1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 233 of 2010 of Chiraayinkeezh Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 420 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 police shall consider and dispose of...
Ranjith K.Unni, S/O. K.P.Kesavan Unni Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No. 7150 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010.ORDER1. Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 853 of 2010 of Ottaapalam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408, 465, 477A and 420 I.P.C., 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 29.11.2010 or on 30.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. After interrogation, petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate concerned who on being convinced that the petitioner has been interrogated by the police, shall release the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »