State of Kerala (Police) vs Sooraj@ Anu — 200601/2024
Case under Anti-social Activities (prevention) Act, 2007 Section 15(4),19. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC on 21st April 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTR200023652024
Filing Number
202720/2024
Filing Date
14-06-2024
Registration No
200601/2024
Registration Date
14-06-2024
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur
Judge
1-MAGISTRATE KODUNGALLUR
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC
FIR Details
FIR Number
397
Police Station
Kaipamangalam
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Adv. Asst Public Prosecutor(JFCM,Kodungallur)
Respondent(s)
Sooraj@ Anu
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MAGISTRATE KODUNGALLUR
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
No sitting notified
FOR HEARING
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 17-04-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 07-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 30-03-2026 | For further hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Sooraj @ Anu (CC 601/2024) The Kodungallur Judicial Magistrate acquitted Sooraj @ Anu of charges under sections 15(4) and 19 of the Kerala Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, finding that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prohibitory order was not properly admitted as evidence (only a photocopy was produced without following secondary evidence procedures), and material contradictions existed regarding the arrest location, undermining the case foundation and warranting acquittal with bail cancellation and immediate release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Sooraj @ Anu (CC 601/2024) The Kodungallur Judicial Magistrate acquitted Sooraj @ Anu of charges under sections 15(4) and 19 of the Kerala Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, finding that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prohibitory order was not properly admitted as evidence (only a photocopy was produced without following secondary evidence procedures), and material contradictions existed regarding the arrest location, undermining the case foundation and warranting acquittal with bail cancellation and immediate release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts