Allowed

Subhash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2010Bail Appl./261/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam granted bail to the petitioner, accused in an abkari offence for transporting spirit, subject to stringent conditions including monetary bond, reporting, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing bond for Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, subject to stringent conditions including reporting and no tampering with evidence.

Subhash Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 261 of 2010()

¶6

---------------------------CRIME NO.215/2009 OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SUBHASH, S/O. BABU, THARISU VEEDU, AVANAKUZHY KADU, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

EXCISE INSPECTOR, KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

B.A.No.261 of 2010

¶19

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2010

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.215 of 2009 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station.

¶22

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

¶23

The prosecution case is that on 11.8.2009, accused Nos.1 and 6 were found transporting 594 litres of spirit in an Opel Astra car. Accused No.4 and 2 were found escorting the car in another vehicle. The petitioner was arrested on 6.1.2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.547 of 2009 of Neyyattinkara Police Station in respect of an abkari offence.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner undertakes not to commit any offence of similar nature while on bail in the present case. This undertaking is recorded.

¶26

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the

¶27

BA No.261/2010

¶28

¶29

petitioner, the nature of the offence, the present stage of investigation and also taking note of the aforesaid undertaking, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions.

¶30

The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Neyyattinkara, 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 and Thursdays for a period of two months and thereafter 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,

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

csl

Subhash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Karupa Swamy @ Swamy Vs the Forest Range Officer, Aryankavu

Suresh Kumar @ Sathyam Vs State of Kerala

Ameer and Another Vs State of Kerala

Anzar Babu.M Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others

Binoy.P.v. Vs Sho, Mattannur Police Station

Abdul Sathar Vs the Station House Officer,Hosdurg