Dismissed

Surendran and Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Sept 2010Bail Appl./4721/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala denied anticipatory bail in an excise case involving illegal possession or manufacture. Directed petitioners to surrender for interrogation and recovery of material before Magistrate considers regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender on 23/9/2010 or 24/9/2010 for interrogation; application for regular bail to be considered thereafter.

Surendran and Another Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932

¶3

Bail Appl..No. 4721 of 2010(E) ----------------------------------------(CR.NO.73/2009 OF KAYAMKULAM EXCISE RANGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT) .........

¶4

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:

¶5

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

¶6

1. SURENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, MEENATHARAYIL HOUSE, BHARANIKKAVU THEKKU MURI, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.

¶7

2. REGHU.D, S/O.DAMODHARAN, KAKKANTEYYATH HOUSE, MUTHUKULAM THEKKU MURI, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW.

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITWIK.

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

prv.

¶14

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶15

Bail Application No.4721 of 2010

¶16

Dated this the 13^th day of September, 2010

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 & 2 in CR. No.73/2009 of Kayamkulam Excise Range for offences punishable under Sections 56(b) & 57(a) of Kerala Abkari Act, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶20

application.

¶21

Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 23/9/2010 or on 24/9/2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfied that

¶22

Bail Appln.No.4721/2010

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.

¶25

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶26

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶27

skj

Surendran and Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendran and Another 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

Dileepkhan Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Vs State

Shine Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Babu Kesavan Vs State of Kerala

Jaimon Thomas Vs Superintendent of Police

Jamsheer Vs State