Allowed

Sivan.P.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2009Bail Appl./2486/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons charged under the Abkari Act regarding illegal storage of spirit and toddy. The court held that vehicle registration alone does not implicate owners in the offense and allowed bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; direction to release on bail for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties if arrested. Conditions: appear for interrogation, no witness interference, no further offenses.

Sivan.P.K Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 2486 of 2009() -------------------------------------CRIME NO.570/2009 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION ....................

¶5

PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 14, 15 AND 17:

¶6

¶7

SIVAN.P.K, S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, PARASSERY, H. NO. 2/270, THANILADAN, MANNAM, PARAVUR VILLAGE.

¶8

RENNY P. DAMIYAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. PETER DAMIYAN, KAIMATHURUTHIL VEEDU, PUTHENVELIKKARA.

¶9

JUDY.K.M @ JUDE, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, H. NO. 4/206, KAIMATHURUTHIL VEEDU, PALIYANTHURUTHU, PUTHENVELIKKARA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶11

SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

THE DY. SP, OFFICE OF THE DY.S.P, ALUVA, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO. 570/2009 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION.

¶16

SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶19

B.A. No.2486 of 2009

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2009

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the code of criminal procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.14, 15 and 17 in Crime No.570/2009 of Nedumbassery Police Station.

¶23

The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Sections 8(1), (2) and 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act.

¶24

About 4000 litres of diluted spirit and 6650 litres of toddy mixed spirit were seized by the police on 17/03/2009 from a godown of the toddy shop, of which the first accused is the licensee. Four vehicles were also seized from the premises. No contraband articles were seized from the vehicles. Three of the vehicles belong to three petitioners herein. The petitioners contend that as per the agreements, copies of which are produced along with the Bail Application, each one of the petitioners entered into separate agreement with the first accused, by which the vehicle belong to each one of the petitioners was hired for daily rent for a period up to 31/03/2009

¶25

B.A. No.2486/2009

¶26

¶27

to the first accused. It is contended that the 3^rd petitioner was employed abroad during the relevant time and now also he is working abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that since there is no allegation that the petitioners committed the offence, there is no justification for including them also in the array of accused. It is also pointed out that simply because the vehicles were seized from the premises, no offence under the Abkari Act can be fastened on the registered owners of the vehicles. The petitioners rely on the decisions in Sooraj Vs. Excise Inspector: [2002(1) KLJ 739] and Sony C. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala:[2007(3) KLJ 629]. In support of the contention, the counsel also pointed out that even Section 64A of the Abkari Act would not apply in the case on hand since it was held by this Court in Rajan Vs. Excise Inspector: [2004(2) KLT 430] that vehicle does not come within the purview of Section 64 A and only land, building, room, space and enclosure would come within the purview of Section 64 A. There is also no case that the petitioners abetted for the commission of offence.

¶28

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

¶29

B.A. No.2486/2009

¶30

¶31

case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

A) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶33

B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

C) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶35

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶36

above.

¶37

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶38

scm

Sivan.P.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivan.P.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala

Aji Vs State of Kerala

Justine Paul Vs State of Kerala

Rema a & Another Vs S.I. of Police,Nedumkandam & Another

K.B.Manoj & Another Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala