{"id":119451,"date":"2007-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2"},"modified":"2015-03-18T04:04:18","modified_gmt":"2015-03-17T22:34:18","slug":"sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2","title":{"rendered":"Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nBail Appl No. 399 of 2007()\n\n\n1. SAJITH, S\/O.SUDHAKARAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :16\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                             V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n\n\n                 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\n                    Bail Application No. 399 of 2007\n\n\n                 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\n             Dated, this the 16th  day of  March   2007\n\n\n\n\n                                    ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      The     petitioner     who   is  the  6th  accused  in  Crime  No.   227<\/p>\n
of   2005   of   Mararikulam   Police   Station   for   offences   punishable<\/p>\n
under Sections 120 B, 109, 115, 307 and 302 read with Sec. 34<\/p>\n
I.P.C. seeks his enlargement on bail.  The occurrence took  place<\/p>\n
on    20-7-2005     in   which   accused   Nos.   1   and   2   who   are   hired<\/p>\n
assassins   allegedly   engaged   by   A6   and   A7   are     said   to   have<\/p>\n
dashed   a   lorry   against   a   Tata   Safari   Car   in   which     deceased<\/p>\n
Ramesh and  others  were travelling and in that accident Ramesh<\/p>\n
and   two   others   were   killed.     According   to   the   prosecution,<\/p>\n
deceased   Ramesh     who   was   formerly   an     employee   of   accused<\/p>\n
Nos. 6 and 7  had dissociated from them and had started a rival<\/p>\n
business   thrivingly   to   the   envy   of   accused   Nos.   6   and   7   who<\/p>\n
planned the “operation road accident”.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     There are altogether  13 accused persons in the case.\n<\/p>\n
Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 were arrested during the latter<\/p>\n
B.A. No.399 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
half  of 2005.   The petitioner surrendered  before   the  investigating<\/p>\n
officer   on   17-11-2006   and   on   production     before   the   Magistrate,<\/p>\n
after   interrogation   by   the     police     was   remanded   to   judicial<\/p>\n
custody  where he continues.\n<\/p>\n
       3.     Opposing the application, Sri. V.K. Mohanan, the learned<\/p>\n
Addl.   Director   General   of   Prosecutions   made   the   following<\/p>\n
submissions before me:-\n<\/p>\n
       The   investigating   agency   after   completing   the   investigation<\/p>\n
against accused  Nos. 1 to 10 had filed  the final charge-sheet on<\/p>\n
25-10-2005.     Thereafter   all   the   10   accused   persons   except   A6<\/p>\n
were   committed   to   the   court   of   Sessions   for     trial   as   per     the<\/p>\n
proceedings   of   the   J.F.C.M.-I,   Alappuzha   in   C.P.   38\/2005.     Since<\/p>\n
the petitioner herein  was absconding,  the case against him was<\/p>\n
re-filed     as   C.P.   41\/05.     As   the   petitioner   was   evading   his<\/p>\n
arrest   even after the issue of non-bailable warrants of arrest, his<\/p>\n
case was transferred  to the Long Pending Case Register as L.P.\n<\/p>\n
78\/05.     Thereafter,   consequent   on   the   surrender   of   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
before   the   police   and   production   before   the   Magistrate   on   17-11-\n<\/p>\n
2006, the case  against   him was re-filed as C.P. 88\/06.   In  the<\/p>\n
B.A. No.399 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
meanwhile   the   investigating   agency   had   commenced   further<\/p>\n
investigation   for   the   alleged     involvement   of   accused   Nos.   11   to<\/p>\n
13   who   were   arrayed   as   such   by   filing   a   supplemental     report<\/p>\n
before the Magistrate on 23-11-2006.   A supplemental charge-sheet<\/p>\n
was thereafter filed on 23-12-2006 which was, however, returned as<\/p>\n
defective.       The   right   of   statutory   bail   under   Section   167   (2)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. is extinguished   when the charge-sheet or final report has<\/p>\n
been   filed.     Merely   because   the     said   charge-sheet   is     returned<\/p>\n
for   curing     certain   defects   will   not   entitle   the   accused   to   be<\/p>\n
released   on   compulsive   bail.    (See   Guna     @   Gunasekharan   v.\n<\/p>\n
The State    – 1997  Crl. L.J. 626   (Madras) and   Velinedipurnam<\/p>\n
v.   STate   –   1994   Crl.L.J.   2579   (Andhra   Pradesh).    Right   to<\/p>\n
compulsive   bail     does   not   survive     after   the   filing   of   chellan<\/p>\n
(State  of    M.P.    v.  Rustam  – 1995  (3)  SCC  221).  The reasons<\/p>\n
stated by the Magistrate for returning the supplimentary final report<\/p>\n
as   defective   are   not   correct.       When     the   original   charge-sheet<\/p>\n
itself   was   filed   on   25-10-2005   against   the   petitioner   as   well<\/p>\n
(although   shown   as   absconding)       within   90   days,   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
cannot     claim   the   benefit   of     the   proviso     to   Sec.   167   (2)<\/p>\n
B.A. No.399 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.  for the reason that the supplemental charge-sheet was not<\/p>\n
filed within 90 days of the detention of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      4.      I   am   afraid   that   I   cannot   agree   with   the   above<\/p>\n
submissions.  It is true that   on 25-10-2005, the final report was<\/p>\n
filed   against   accused   Nos.   1   to   10   in   which   the   petitioner   was<\/p>\n
shown   as   absconding.     He   was   not   apprehended     by   the<\/p>\n
investigating agency nor did he  appear before the committal court<\/p>\n
in C.P. 38\/05.   In the said   final   report filed on 25-10-2005, it<\/p>\n
was clearly stated as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      ”<\/p>\n
                                       “”””<\/p>\n
Thus,   even   according   to   the   investigating   agency,   the   investigation<\/p>\n
against   the   6th  accused   was   not   complete   as   he   could     not   be<\/p>\n
apprehended  and as and when   he was arrested the investigating<\/p>\n
agency wanted to interrogate  him and conduct further investigation.\n<\/p>\n
There   is   no   dispute     that   after   the   petitioner   surrendered   before<\/p>\n
the investigating   officer on 17-11-2006 and  was interrogated , he<\/p>\n
B.A. No.399 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
was produced before the  Magistrate along with a remand  report<\/p>\n
dated 17-11-2006.     In the said  remand   report     it was stated<\/p>\n
as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                .”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                              xxxx         xxxx       xxx\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        :\n\n\n                                                                    \"\"\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
The   above   statement   clearly   shows   that   on   interrogation   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner more information had come to light   about his complicity<\/p>\n
and   police   custody   of   the   petitioner   was   being   sought     for   the<\/p>\n
purpose   of       further   investigation   and   for     collection   of   evidence<\/p>\n
on  the basis  of the statement of the  petitioner  etc.    In the face<\/p>\n
of   the   above   statement   by   the   investigating   officer,   it   is   idle   for<\/p>\n
B.A. No.399 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
the prosecution to contend   that there was no further investigation<\/p>\n
conducted   as   against   the   petitioner   and   that   the   final   report   filed<\/p>\n
on 25-10-2005 pertained to the petitioner as well.  As a matter of<\/p>\n
fact, consequent on the remand of the petitioner to judicial custody<\/p>\n
with   effect   from   17-11-2006   onwards   his   continued   detention   was<\/p>\n
insisted  for  the  reason  that  further  evidence  was   required   to be<\/p>\n
collected.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       5.       When the earlier investigation conducted and the report<\/p>\n
filed were behind the  back  of the petitioner  who had not been<\/p>\n
arrested, the period of 90 days under the proviso to Sec. 167 (2)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. had not started running.  It is only from  17-11-2006 that<\/p>\n
the investigation involving  the petitioner was conducted.   It is true<\/p>\n
that  a  supplemental    charge-sheet after  the    conclusion  of  further<\/p>\n
investigation   was   filed   on   23-12-2006.     But   it   was   admittedly<\/p>\n
returned   as   defective   and   has   not   been   re-presented   so   far.     In<\/p>\n
the  letter dated 9-2-2007 from the J.F.C.M.-I, Alappuzha addressed<\/p>\n
to the Registrar, High Court of Kerala,  he has  stated  that as  on<\/p>\n
9-2-2007   the   final   report   submitted   was   returned   due   to   certain<\/p>\n
defects and it has not been re-presented after  curing the defects.\n<\/p>\n
B.A. No.399 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
This Bail Application  was filed on 18-1-2007 on which date even<\/p>\n
according   to   the   prosecution,   the   supplemental     charge   was   not<\/p>\n
before court.     Merely   because a supplementary final report was<\/p>\n
filed   and   the   same   was   returned   as   defective,   it     cannot   be<\/p>\n
held   that the  final  report was filed within the statutory period<\/p>\n
of   90   days.     Admittedly,   the   supplementary   final   report   has   not<\/p>\n
been  re-presented after curing the defects.  If it  does not suffer<\/p>\n
from   the   defects   pointed     out   by   the   Magistrate,   the   investigating<\/p>\n
agency   could     have   re-presented   the     supplementary   final   report<\/p>\n
stating   that   the   defects   noted   are   not   really   there.     Alternatively,<\/p>\n
the  investigating  agency  could  have  challenged  the    action  of the<\/p>\n
Magistrate     by   approaching   the   superior   forum.       That   also   has<\/p>\n
not   been   done.         Thus,   as   on   the   date   of   filing   of   this   bail<\/p>\n
application,   the   petitioner   had   been   in   custody   for   more   than   90<\/p>\n
days  without  there   being  any  final  report  filed  against him.      To<\/p>\n
be   more   precise,   as   on   15-2-2007,   the   petitioner   completed   90<\/p>\n
days.\n<\/p>\n
       6.       The   only   provision   under   which   a   person   can   be<\/p>\n
detained in   custody during the stage of investigation is Sec. 167<\/p>\n
B.A. No.399 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.     The   petitioner   has   been   in   custody   for   more   than   90<\/p>\n
days   and   the   further   investigation   (which   is   nothing   but   a<\/p>\n
continuation   of   the   original   investigation)   which   was   commenced<\/p>\n
after   the   petitioner   surrendered   before   the   investigating   officer   on<\/p>\n
17-11-2006 has not resulted in a supplementary final report so far.\n<\/p>\n
Hence,   I   am   inclined   to   give   the   petitioner   the   benefit   of     the<\/p>\n
proviso   to   Sec.   167   (2)   Cr.P.C.     Even   otherwise,   I   do   not   think<\/p>\n
that the continuance of the pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
warranted.     The   apprehensions   of   the   prosecution   can   be   taken<\/p>\n
care   of   by   imposing   appropriate   conditions.         The   petitioner   is<\/p>\n
accordingly   directed   to   be   released   on   bail   on   his   executing   a<\/p>\n
bond   for     Rs.   50,000\/-   (Rupees   fifty   thousand   only)     with   two<\/p>\n
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the<\/p>\n
J.F.C.M.-I, Alappuzha and subject to the following conditions:-\n<\/p>\n
               1.      The   petitioner   shall   report   before   the<\/p>\n
               Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.<\/p>\n
               on  all Wednesdays until  a supplementary final<\/p>\n
               report is received on the file of the Magistrate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               2.   The   petitioner   shall   not   enter   the   territorial<\/p>\n
               limits   of   Mararikkulam   Police   Station   until   further<\/p>\n
               orders.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
B.A. No.399 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
               3.      The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if<\/p>\n
               any,   before   the   J.F.C.M.-I,     Alappuzha   and   shall<\/p>\n
               not travel beyond the limits of the State of Kerala<\/p>\n
               without   the   prior   permission   of     the   committal<\/p>\n
               Magistrate   or   the   Sessions   Court   to   which   he   is<\/p>\n
               committed for  trial.\n<\/p>\n
               4.        The   petitioner   shall   make   himself   available<\/p>\n
               for   interrogation   as   and     when   required   by   the<\/p>\n
               police   till   the   filing   of   the     supplementary   final<\/p>\n
               report.\n<\/p>\n
               5.             The     petitioner   shall   not   influence   or<\/p>\n
               intimidate   the   prosecution   witnesses   nor   shall   he<\/p>\n
               attempt to           tamper   with   the   evidence   for   the<\/p>\n
               prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
                6.        The petitioner shall not commit any offence<\/p>\n
                while on bail.\n<\/p>\n
If   the   petitioner   commits   breach   of   any   of   the   above   conditions,<\/p>\n
the bail granted to him  shall be liable to be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
       This application is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
ani<\/p>\n
B.A. No.399 of 2007<\/p>\n
                       10<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl No. 399 of 2007() 1. SAJITH, S\/O.SUDHAKARAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :16\/03\/2007 O […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-17T22:34:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-17T22:34:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2\"},\"wordCount\":1503,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2\",\"name\":\"Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-17T22:34:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-17T22:34:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-17T22:34:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2"},"wordCount":1503,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2","name":"Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-17T22:34:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajith-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-march-2007-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119451"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119451\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}