Dismissed

Jameskutty Jacob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jul 2010Bail Appl./3851/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act, rejecting submissions that the petitioner was innocent of possession charges, holding he was engaged in illicit liquor sale.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail petition dismissed; no further application for anticipatory bail in the crime will be entertained.

Jameskutty Jacob Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3851 of 2010() ----------------------------(CRIME NO.141/2009 OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION)

¶3

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED

¶4

-----------------------------------------JAMESKUTTY JACOB,S/O.JACOB, AKKARAKALATHIL HOUSE, KURISUMOODU PO, KUNNATHANAM,CHANGANASSERY.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT BUREAU, PAINAVU, IDUKKI.

¶10

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATAPPANA POLICE STATION.

¶11

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.TEK CHAND

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.HEMA, J.

¶14

B.A. No.3851 of 2010

¶15

----------------------------------------------- Dated 28^th July, 2010.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Petition for anticipatory bail.

¶18

The alleged offences are under Sections 55(a) and (i) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 20.2.2009, accused nos. 1 and 2 were found transporting 49.125 litres of Indian made foreign liquor in 131 bottles in an autorickshaw. On investigation, it was revealed that it was for the purpose of 3^rd accused that the articles were transported by accused 1 and 2. The 3^rd accused was also engaged in sale of Indian made foreign liquor in a hotel run by him.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act. Only the person, who is found in possession of liquor, alone can be proceeded against for offence under Section 55(a) of the Act, it is submitted. Petitioner, admittedly, was not even found in possession of liquor and hence, he is not liable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. The possession of Indian made foreign

¶20

[B.A.No.3851/2010] 2

¶21

liquor above permissible quantity, if it is purchased from Beverages Corporation, attracts only bailable offence under Section 63 of the Act. It is also submitted that the first accused made a complaint about the investigation conducted by Sub Inspector of Police and the investigation was transferred to another officer who falsely implicated petitioner in the crime. It is only on the basis of the statement given by first accused that petitioner is implicated in the offence and he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

¶22

This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it was the third accused (petitioner) who was actually involved in the case. Third accused used to give money to autorickshaw drivers and engage them for bringing Indian made foreign liquor from the Beverages Corporation and he used to sell the same in his hotel. Both the accused, when arrested, had revealed that 3^rd accused was actually involved in the crime and investigation was conducted. There are materials in the case diary to show that petitioner was engaged in sale of Indian made foreign liquor inside his hotel and petitioners were engaged by him to bring contraband articles involved in this case. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

¶23

¶24

[B.A.No.3851/2010]

¶25

It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that, as per the case diary, the investigation was handed over to the Dy.S.P., Narcotic Cell. The crime was registered as as early as in 2009 and even at that time petitioner was implicated as 3^rd accused, but he was not arrested and that may be the reason why the investigation was handed over to Dy.S.P., Narcotic Cell. Petitioner is sought to be arrested.

¶26

On hearing both sides and on considering the various facts and circumstances, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. The case diary prima facie reveals that petitioner was engaged in sale of Indian made foreign liquor. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. This is not a fit case to grand anticipatory bail. Offence under Section 55(a) is alleged against accused 1 and 2 and offence alleged is under section 55(i) of Abkari Act is alleged against petitioner and a report is also filed.

¶27

No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court hereafter.

¶28

Petition is dismissed.

¶29

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

¶30

krs.

Jameskutty Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameskutty Jacob 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

Sreerag Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Omana Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Prasad K.P.R. Vs State of Kerala

Saleena Vs State of Kerala

Jose Thomas Vs State of Kerala