State of Kerala - Erumeli Police vs Anoop R Nair Advocate - AJEESH P NAIR — 100295/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 449,302. Status: Await Summons. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLKT010021842020
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
1657/2020
Filing Date
23-10-2020
Registration No
100295/2020
Registration Date
23-10-2020
Court
Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam
Judge
2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I, Kottayam
FIR Details
FIR Number
29
Police Station
Erumeli Police Station
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala - Erumeli Police
Adv. Additional Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor (ADC 2, Kottayam)
Respondent(s)
Anoop R Nair Advocate - AJEESH P NAIR
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I, Kottayam
Await Summons
For Return of Summons
Issue Summons
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | Await Summons |
| 08-06-2026 | For Return of Summons |
| 01-06-2026 | Issue Summons |
| 26-05-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 23-05-2026 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100295/2020 Outcome: Application DISMISSED The accused (Anoop R Nair) sought to recall witness PW4 and obtain production of a Section 161 CrPC statement allegedly not served at the preliminary disclosure stage. The court found no evidence that any additional written Section 161 statement of PW4 was recorded by police—the witness's statement appeared only in the inquest report (Exhibit P2), which was properly served to the accused. The court held that Section 161 does not mandate written statements and rejected claims of suppression, dismissing the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100295/2020 Outcome: Application DISMISSED The accused (Anoop R Nair) sought to recall witness PW4 and obtain production of a Section 161 CrPC statement allegedly not served at the preliminary disclosure stage. The court found no evidence that any additional written Section 161 statement of PW4 was recorded by police—the witness's statement appeared only in the inquest report (Exhibit P2), which was properly served to the accused. The court held that Section 161 does not mandate written statements and rejected claims of suppression, dismissing the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts