Allowed

Lakshmi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2010Bail Appl./500/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under the Abkari Act. The court observed that the ingredients of the offense were not fully satisfied and directed that bail be granted subject to specific conditions regarding interrogation and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on bond of Rs. 10,000 with two solvent sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 500 of 2010

¶5

CR.NO.14 OF 2009 OF BADADUKA EXCISE RANGE, KASARAGOD

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------LAKSHMI, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.SUGUMARAN, PUDHUKOLLI DESOM, KARIVEBEDAGAM VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI

¶8

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

¶9

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BADADUKA EXCISE RANGE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶10

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶13

B.A. NO. 500 OF 2010

¶14

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2010

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of

¶17

the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Cr. No.14 of 2009 of Badaduka Excise Range, Kasaragod District.

¶18

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.

¶19

The petitioner is the wife of accused No.1. The allegation is that on 22.9.2009, accused No.2 handed over a can containing ten

¶20

litres of arrack to her husband, accused No.1.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶23

the ingredients of the offence under Section 8(1) and (2) are not satisfied.

¶24

B.A. NO. 500 OF 2010

¶25

:: 2 ::

¶26

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

¶27

case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶28

There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶29

a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶30

b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶31

c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;

¶32

d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶33

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶34

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶35

ahz/

Lakshmi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi 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

Koovapara George Vs S.I. of Police

C.K.Mohammed Vs the Station House Officer, Nadakkavu

Subair Vs State of Kerala

Shafeeq Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Thomas Vs State of Kerala