Dismissed

Uchummel Praveen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2010Bail Appl./418/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused in a case involving alleged violation of Gas Regulation Orders and the Essential Commodities Act. The court denied relief deeming the offences grave and requiring custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; anticipatory bail denied; custodial interrogation deemed necessary.

Uchummel Praveen Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 418 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------CRIME NO.211/2009 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

-------------------------------------UCHUMMEL PRAVEEN,S/O.NANU,AGED 30 YEARS, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM,AMBITAH DESOM,P.O.THOKKILANGADI KUTHUPARAMBA.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PANKAJAKSHAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶14

B.A. No. 418 of 2010

¶15

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2010

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

¶18

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.211/2009 of Kuthuparamba Police Station.

¶19

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶20

The prosecution case is that on 28/2/2008, the

¶21

Taluk supply officer and party found one Mahindra Jeep and Maruti Omni Van parked in front of the Central Automobiles. In the Mahindra Jeep, seven gas cylinders for domestic use and one empty gas cylinder for domestic use were found by them. In the Maruti Omni Van, ten such cylinders were found. They also found three gas cylinders for domestic use and one cylinder for commercial purpose and motors and equipments for transferring gas from one cylinder to the other, in a

¶22

B.A. No. 418/2010

¶23

¶24

building numbered as KM III/207. According to the prosecution, the vehicles belong to the petitioner and the building was in possession of the petitioner. That the vehicles belong to the petitioner was admitted by him before the Taluk supply officer and he got the vehicles released in his favour. There are materials to show that the building from where the gas cylinders and motors were seized, was in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest and therefore he has filed this application for anticipatory bail.

¶25

The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature. The allegation is that cooking gas supplied for domestic purpose was being used for commercial purposes. The cooking gas for domestic purposes would be supplied on subsidised rates. By converting the same for the commercial purposes, the accused was making undue profits.

¶26

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. I am of the

¶27

B.A. No. 418/2010

¶28

¶29

view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief

¶30

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial

¶31

interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case.

¶32

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

¶33