Allowed

Sainath Rao v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Oct 2009Bail Appl./5594/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused facing charges under the Abkari Act. The court accepted the petition's compliance with a prior direction to appear before the investigating officer and granted bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of a bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties and compliance with specific reporting and conduct conditions.

Sainath Rao Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5594 of 2009

¶6

CRIME NO.621 OF 2009 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------SAINATH RAO, 'MAHAMAYA',S.V.T.CROSS ROAD, KASABA VILLAGE,KASARGOD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶9

RESPONDENT: STATE

¶10

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARGOD,THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶15

B.A. NO. 5594 OF 2009

¶16

Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2009

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.621 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station.

¶19

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

¶20

The prosecution case is that 36 bottles of Beer were found in a compound very near to the hotel run by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is not in possession of that place and that it is in the possession of some other persons.

¶21

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

¶22

6.10.2009, the following order was passed:

¶23

“After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an

¶24

B.A. NO. 5594 OF 2009

¶25

:: 2 ::

¶26

opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 13^th and 14^th October, 2009.

¶27

Post on 20.10.2009.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

¶29

that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.621 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even when the petitioner appears on 13^th and 14^th October, 2009, there is likelihood of the petitioner being manhandled by the police. It is assured by the Public Prosecutor that there will be no room for any such complaint.”

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer as directed in the order dated 6.10.2009.

¶32

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the fact that the petitioner has complied with the direction in the order dated 6.10.2009, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will

¶33

B.A. NO. 5594 OF 2009

¶34

:: 3 ::

¶35

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:

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶42

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶43

ahz/

Sainath Rao v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sainath Rao 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

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Leela.M. Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by S.I.of Police

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Vasanthi Vs State of Kerala

John Vs State of Kerala

Arun S/O Chandran Vs State of Kerala