Allowed

Krishnan v. State of Kerala Rep.by Excise Inspector

Kerala HC21 Oct 2009Bail Appl./5067/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a prosecution under the Abkari Act, imposing conditions including surety bonds and reporting requirements, while observing the petitioner's compliance with previous directions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties and specific reporting and non-interference conditions.

Krishnan Vs State of Kerala Rep.by Excise Inspector — 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 5067 of 2009(C) -----------------------------------------(C.R.NO.13/2009 OF NENMARA EXCISE RANGE, PALAKKAD) ....................

¶5

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

¶6

KRISHNAN, S/O.KARUMAN, AGED 49 YEARS, PEZHUMPARA, ALUVASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶7

BY MR.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. MR.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, MR.DIJO SEBASTIAN.

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, NENMARA EXCISE RANGE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. TEKCHAND.

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

prv.

¶13

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶14

B.A. No. 5067 of 2009

¶15

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2009

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in C.R.No.13/2009 of Nenmara Excise Range, Palakkad.

¶18

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

¶19

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 16/9/2009, the following order was passed:

¶20

“ B.A. No.4331 of 2009 submitted by the

¶21

petitioner for Anticipatory Bail was dismissed by me by the order dated 19/8/2009. The present application for anticipatory bail is filed pointing out certain additional facts. It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from Paranoid Phychosis. The petitioner also submits that he is prepared to appear before the Investigating Officer.

¶22

Before disposing of this Bail Application, I am of

¶23

B.A. No. 5067/2009

¶24

¶25

the view that the petitioner can be afforded an

¶26

opportunity to appear before the Investigating Officer on 29^th and 30^th September, 2009 at 9A.M.

¶27

Post the Bail application on 15/10/2009.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

¶29

that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders.”

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the directions contained in the order dated 16/09/2009.

¶31

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

¶32

case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

B.A. No. 5067/2009

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶41

above.

¶42

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶43

scm

Krishnan v. State of Kerala Rep.by Excise Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan v. State of Kerala Rep.by Excise Inspector

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

Vasanthi Vs State of Kerala

John Vs State of Kerala

Sainath Rao Vs State of Kerala

Jayas.K.J Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Chellappan Nair & Another Vs State of Kerala