State of Kerala vs Balu Advocate - B.Suresh — 100859/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,147,323,324,506(i),149IPC. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC on 01st April 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLKM340035262016
Filing Number
1112727/2016
Filing Date
07-07-2016
Registration No
100859/2016
Registration Date
07-07-2016
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Paravur
Judge
1-Temporary Judl.I Class Magistrate
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC
FIR Details
FIR Number
1040
Police Station
Paravoor PS
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Balu Advocate - B.Suresh
Sujith
Ashiq suresh
Prasanth
Adv. B.Suresh
Pradmod
Adv. B.Suresh
Vishnu
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Temporary Judl.I Class Magistrate
Disposed
No sitting notified
FOR HEARING
No sitting notified
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 12-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 28-02-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 20-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Balu Advocate (859/2016) Decision: The court acquitted all five living accused (Balu, Sujith, Prasanth, Pramod, and Vishnu) of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 506, and 149 for an alleged June 2016 assault. The prosecution's case failed due to insufficient evidence—key witnesses turned hostile, and only two accused were identified by witnesses with no proof of specific overt acts or common intention required for unlawful assembly charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Balu Advocate (859/2016) Decision: The court acquitted all five living accused (Balu, Sujith, Prasanth, Pramod, and Vishnu) of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 506, and 149 for an alleged June 2016 assault. The prosecution's case failed due to insufficient evidence—key witnesses turned hostile, and only two accused were identified by witnesses with no proof of specific overt acts or common intention required for unlawful assembly charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts