E.Krishna v. Thulasiraman
Case brief
What is this about?
Court allowed intervention by an intervenor who is related to one of the accused in an anticipatory bail application, based on allegations of property sale connections.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.P.No.14553 of 2023 in Crl.O.P.No.12699 of 2023
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
The petitioner herein is the son of the 11th accused in this case. Accordingly to the intervenor, his father had purchased one of the portion of the property. As he died on 06.06.2020, as a legal heir, he was projected in this case and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail for selling the property to his father.
In view of the above, permission to intervene is allowed.
26.09.2023 (1/2)
rgr
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether permission to intervene should be allowed in the application for anticipatory bail.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Son of 11th accused
- intervenor
Intervenor
Coram
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court