Allowed

Sudeepkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Aug 2009Bail Appl./4533/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant accused of transporting spirit under the Abkari Act. The court held that the failure of the investigating officer to arrest other accused is not a ground for denying bail given the short duration of custody.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount.

Sudeepkumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 4533 of 2009() ----------------------------CRIME NO.238/2009 OF KASABA POLICE STATION

¶5

APPLICANT/ACCUSED

¶6

------------------------------------SUDEEPKUMAR E.S., S/O. SUKUMARAN, ERUMATHURUTHIL HOUSE, MANNATHIKULAM, IRINJALAKKUDA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶9

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶11

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶14

B.A.No.4533 of 2009

¶15

Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2009

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.238 of 2009 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad District.

¶18

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

¶19

The prosecution case is that on 1.7.2009 at 5.45 PM, the petitioner was found transporting 700 litres of spirit in a car. The petitioner was coming from Thrissur to Coimbatore. The car was intercepted at Chandranagar, Palakkad. When the police directed the petitioner to stop the vehicle he did not obey. Later, the police party followed the vehicle and it was intercepted. Inside the car, the spirit was stored in twenty cans and it was kept covered with a cloth. A tyre was also found placed over the cans. It is stated that the petitioner is a student of Master Diploma in Interior Architectural Designing. He was arrested

¶20

BA No.4533/2009

¶21

¶22

and produced before court. He was remanded to judicial custody. The investigation of the case is not over.

¶23

The petitioner filed B.A.No.4120 of 2009 before this Court which was dismissed by the order dated 28^th July 2009.

¶24

Learned public prosecutor submitted that even after the order dated 28^th July 2009, accused Nos.2 to 4 have not been arrested. The investigation is also not completed.

¶25

That the investigating officer was not able to arrest the accused need not always be a ground for continuing the judicial custody of the other accused in a case. In this case, the first accused is in judicial custody since 1.7.2009. If the investigating officer is not very much interested in tracing out the other accused, I do not think that it could be a ground to deny bail to the petitioner.

¶26

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶27

The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing

¶28

BA No.4533/2009

¶29

¶30

bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Palakkad, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶32

b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶33

c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶34

d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;

¶35

e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶36

The Bail Application is allowed as above.

¶37

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶38

csl

Sudeepkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudeepkumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.v.Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Sajithkumar.T. Vs Sub Inspector of Police Kottayam and Anr.

Muraleedharan K.R. & Others Vs State of Kerala

Vinod M. Vs State of Kerala

Shaji @ Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Kunhi Moosa Vs State of Kerala