State of Kerala (Police) vs Anoop Kumar.P — 860/2017
Case under Explosive Substance Act 1908\ Section 3,5,6. Status: For evidence.. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLKN010030242017
Next Hearing
09th July 2026
Filing Number
860/2017
Filing Date
02-08-2017
Registration No
860/2017
Registration Date
07-10-2017
Court
District Court and Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery
Judge
2-1st Additional District Judge
FIR Details
FIR Number
773
Police Station
Kannur Town
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Respondent(s)
Anoop Kumar.P
Rahila K.A @ Raheel
Nijeesh P.R @ Unni
Hearing History
Judge: 2-1st Additional District Judge
For evidence.
For evidence.
For evidence.
remand Extended
call on
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | For evidence. |
| 25-05-2026 | For evidence. |
| 11-05-2026 | For evidence. |
| 27-04-2026 | remand Extended |
| 24-04-2026 | call on |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Anoop Kumar P and Others (SC 860/2017) Outcome: Both criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor were allowed. The court permitted the prosecution to file a scientific officer's report (containing evidence from the crime scene) and add the Scientific Officer as a witness to the case, which were inadvertently omitted due to investigative oversight. The court rejected the accused's objections that this constituted improper case-filling and that late introduction would prejudice them, holding that under Section 311 Cr.P.C., relevant documents and witnesses may be admitted at any trial stage in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Anoop Kumar P and Others (SC 860/2017) Outcome: Both criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor were allowed. The court permitted the prosecution to file a scientific officer's report (containing evidence from the crime scene) and add the Scientific Officer as a witness to the case, which were inadvertently omitted due to investigative oversight. The court rejected the accused's objections that this constituted improper case-filling and that late introduction would prejudice them, holding that under Section 311 Cr.P.C., relevant documents and witnesses may be admitted at any trial stage in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts