Disposed

Anilkumar v. Excise Inspector of Police

Kerala HC16 Jan 2007Bail Appl./91/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, while refusing anticipatory bail to the accused in an Abkari Act case involving transport of illicit spirit, directed his surrender for interrogation before seeking regular bail from the Magistrate within two days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation before Investigating Officer between 18.01.2007 and 20.01.2007 to enable consideration of regular bail application by Magistrate.

Anilkumar Vs Excise Inspector of Police — Corruption | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2007 / 26TH PAUSHA 1928

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 91 of 2007() --------------------------CR 232/06 of Karunagappally Excise Range

¶6

: PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------

¶7

ANILKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, PERUMPALLY MELATHIL, EZHUKONE CHERRY, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLANNOOR, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.H.HARIKUMAR (KOLLAM)

¶9

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶10

¶11

EXCISE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI. JAI GEORGE

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V.Ramkumar, J. ======================== B.A.No.91 of 2007

¶16

========================

¶17

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2007.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner, who is the accused in C.R.No.232 of 2006 of Karunagappally Excise Range for offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 67(B) of Abkari Act for allegedly carrying 1530 litres of spirit on 7.12.2006 at about 1.30 a.m., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

According to the petitioner, except for the fact that he is the registered owner of a mini lorry in question, he had nothing to do with the offence and his lorry was stolen by somebody from his custody at 10 p.m. on 6.12.2006 and he had promptly lodged a complaint before the Ezhukone Police Station.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the complicity of the petitioner would be fully found out only after the interrogation of the petitioner, who has not been responding to the notice issued in that behalf.

¶22

Having regard to the nature of the offence and the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. But at the same time, I am inclined

¶23

BA 91/07 -: 2 :-

¶24

to grant the petitioner an opportunity to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for regular bail considered on merits by the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶25

Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on any day between 18.1.2007 and 20.1.2007 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction on the same day. The Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the application, if any, filed by the petitioner for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.

¶26

With this direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶27

V.Ramkumar, Judge.

¶28

ess 16/1

Anilkumar v. Excise Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar v. Excise Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

T.P.Mohammed Shameem Vs the State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Sophy Korea Vs State of Kerala

Amshan Pillai Vs the State of Kerala

S. Santhosh @ Santhu Vs State of Kerala