Dismissed

P.K.Santhamma v. S.I. of Police Koipuram Police Station

Kerala HC9 Jun 2010Bail Appl./1863/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by a female accused charged with possession of illicit liquor. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish innocence or explain the seizure of the liquor found in her possession during a police patrol.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed as the petitioner failed to explain the possession of illicit liquor.

P.K.Santhamma Vs S.I. of Police Koipuram Police Station — Corruption | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1863 of 2010() ----------------------------CRIME NO.163/2010 OF KOIPURAM STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶6

(S): PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶7

¶8

P.K.SANTHAMMA, NILANARAKATHIUKAL, KANJEETUMKARA P.O., AYIROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

¶12

S.I.OF POLICE, KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.HEMA, J.

¶17

---------------------------------------------Bail Application No.1863 of 2010

¶18

Dated 9^th June, 2010.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶21

The alleged offence is under Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner was found carrying a bottle and a glass near a wall, while the police party was on patrol duty. The articles were seized and it was found that petitioner was in possession of 750 ml. of illicit liquor.

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per prosecution case, one Biju had informed the police and hence, the crime was registered. The said Biju and petitioner are on inimical terms, since he used to sit in a nearby compound along with his friends and consume alcohol, to which petitioner had objected. Petitioner is a woman and she has not committed any offence, it is submitted.

¶23

This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations in the records, petitioner was found in Possession of 750 ml. of illicit liquor, for which she had no explanation.

¶24

BA NO.1863/2010

¶25

¶26

On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not

¶27

a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, especially since petitioner is not able to establish her innocence and explain the seizure of 750

¶28

ml. of illicit liquor from her possession.

¶29

Petition is dismissed.

¶30

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

¶31

tgs

P.K.Santhamma v. S.I. of Police Koipuram Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Santhamma v. S.I. of Police Koipuram Police Station

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

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

K.Ratnakumar Vs State of Kerala and Another

K.Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

K.a.George Vs State of Kerala

Ninan K.Jacob Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Suseela Vs State of Kerala