Allowed

Ramesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2010Bail Appl./375/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for carrying arrack. The court imposed strict conditions including surrender within seven days, execution of a bond of Rs.10,000, cooperation with investigation, and an undertaking not to commit similar offenses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on conditions of surrendering within seven days, executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, and cooperating with the investigation.

Ramesh Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 375 of 2010() (CR.NO.77 OF 2009 OF UDUMBANCHOLA EXCISE RANGE).

¶6

----------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-

¶8

--------------------------------------

¶9

RAMESH, S/O. PONNAPPAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KANJIRAKKADU VEEDU, PARATHODU VILLAGE, PARATHODU KARA, KAILASANADU, IDUKKI.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :-

¶12

-----------------------------------

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V.TEK CHAND.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

jvt

¶17

K. HEMA, J.

¶18

Bail Application No.375 of 2010

¶19

Dated 3^rd June, 2010

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶22

The alleged offence is under Sec.8(2) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 26.10.2009 at about 5.40 p.m. the petitioner was found carrying a can and on seeing the Excise Officials, emptied the can and abandoned and ran away. On search in the nearby places 110 litres of arrack was seized from a cardamom plantation. According to prosecution, the article belongs to petitioner and a crime was registered against him.

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a coolie by profession. On 26.10.2009, in the evening, the Excise Officials took out about 110 litres of arrack from a cardamom plantation which belongs to one Ashoka Chettiar which is situated 500 meters away from his house. The officials came to petitioner's house and conducted a search in the house, when his wife alone was present there. But no articles were seized. His wife was asked to sign some papers and she

¶24

Bail Application No.375 of 2010

¶25

signed the same on compulsion. But later it was understood that petitioner was implicated in this case alleging that the articles seized belonged to him. Petitioner was falsely implicated in another case (Crime No.50/2007) also and he establish that it is a false case. He has not committed any offence under the Abkari Act. Excise officials, on the influence of some other persons, implicated the petitioner in this case, it is submitted.

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a complaint was made to the Excise Minister, Assistant Excise Commissioner etc. and the copy is Annexure-I. During the pendency of this case, petitioner appeared before the Assistant Commissioner, Excise as per directions of this court and he was questioned.

¶27

This petition is not opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that bail can be granted on stringent conditions.

¶28

On hearing both sides and considering the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and going through Annexure-I, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to him on conditions. Hence the following order is passed :-

¶29

Bail Application No.375 of 2010

¶30

:3:

¶31

(1) Petitioner shall surrender before Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today.

¶32

(2) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions :-

¶33

(i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation.

¶34

(ii) In case petitioner is involved in any similar other offence, his bail is liable to be cancelled.

¶35

Petition is allowed.

¶36

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

¶37

jvt

Ramesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh 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

Noushad.P.E Vs S.I. of Police, Pathanamthitta

Alexander Valiyaveettil John Vs State of Kerala

Paul Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Aji @ Ajithkumar Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Saru Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala Rep. by Sub Inspector