Allowed

Sanil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2010Bail Appl./799/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the petitioner, accused No.3 in C.R.No.19 of 2010, sought anticipatory bail for alleged involvement in transportation and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. The Court considered the lack of material connecting the petitioner to the offence and allowed anticipatory bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and conduct.

Sanil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 799 of 2010() -------------------------------C.R.NO. 19/2010 0F SASTHAMCOTTA EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶5

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED : ----------------------------------

¶6

SANIL KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, SUNIL BHAVANAM, ITHOTTUVA MURI, WEST KALLADA VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

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

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, SASTHAMCOTTA EXCISE RANGE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶14

B.A. No. 799 of 2010

¶15

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2010

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

¶18

25.02.2010, the following order was passed.

¶19

“This is an application for anticipatory

¶20

bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in C.R.No.19 of 2010 of Sasthamcotta Excise Range, Kollam District.

¶21

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

¶22

3. On 2.2.2010, the Excise Party arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 who are found transporting ten litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. It would appear that they stated to the Excise officials that the petitioner (accused No.3) directed them to purchase Indian Made Foreign Liquor and they purchased the same from the outlet of the Beverages Corporation.

¶23

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no

¶24

B.A. No. 799 of 2010 2

¶25

material to connect the petitioner with the offence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He is not involved in any other offence of similar nature. There is no independent evidence to show that the petitioner has directed accused Nos.1 and 2 to get the Indian Made Foreign Liquor. There is also no evidence to show that the petitioner was indulging in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.

¶26

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 4^th and 5^th March, 2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer.

¶27

Post on 11.3.2010.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with C.R.No.19 of 2010 of Sasthamcotta Excise Range, Kollam District.”

¶29

B.A. No. 799 of 2010 3

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶31

and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 25.02.2010.

¶32

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 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 him on bail on his 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:

¶33

A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶34

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

¶35

C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶36

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

¶37

B.A. No. 799 of 2010 4

¶38

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

¶39

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶40

above.

¶41

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶42

Sanil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanil Kumar 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

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Nalini Vs State of Kerala

Aji@ Ani Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Vs State of Kerala

A.K.Suresh and Ors. Vs State of Kerala

Prejith Vs the State of Kerala