Pushpangadan @ Pushpan v. the State of Kerala
Case brief
What is this about?
The Kerala High Court rejected a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by a petitioner charged with possession of arrack under the Abkari Act. The Court classified the offence as grave and directed the petitioner to surrender before the Magistrate within two weeks for regular bail hearing.
What did the court decide?
No relief granted; application disposed without anticipatory bail.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932
Bail Appl..No. 7208 of 2010() ----------------------------------------(CRIME NO.71/2010 OF KARTHIKAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------
PUSHPANGADAN @ PUSHPAN, S/O.NANAPPAN, PLAMOOTTIL HOUSE, THAMALLACKAL MURI, KUMARAPURAM, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in an offence involving alleged possession of arrack punishable under Section 8(i)(ii) of the Abkari Act.
Whether the petitioner should be directed to surrender before the Magistrate to seek regular bail instead of granting anticipatory bail.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
PUSHPANGADAN @ PUSHPAN
- respondent
THE STATE OF KERALA
Coram
V. RAMKUMAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court