SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Ker) 21

K.T.SANKARAN
Shino Paul – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:T.P. Pradeep, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.

Judgment :-

K.T. Sankaran, J.

The questions of law involved in this Bail Application are (1) whether the accused would be entitled to `default bail' under the proviso (a) to sub section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case where the charge sheet filed within time was returned by the learned Magistrate to the investigating officer with certain directions regarding investigation, and when the charge sheet was not re-submitted within ninety days from the date of arrest of the accused. (2) When the charge sheet was filed within time and cognizance was not taken, whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction to remand an accused to judicial custody. If so, would Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure apply to the situation?

2. Bail Application No. 6816 of 2009 is filed by Sunil alias Suni (accused No. 7), Aneesh Kumar (accused No. 9), Binoy Markose alias Binoy (accused No. 10) and Jain Jose alias Jain (accused No. 11) in Crime No. 197 of 2009 of Nedumudy Police Station. Bail Application No. 6890 of 2009 is filed by Shino Paul (Accused No. 4) and Akash Sasidharan alias Rajesh (accused No. 5) in the aforesaid Crime. The Bail Applications are filed under Section 439 of t






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top