Allowed

Gavaskar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2012Bail Appl./2518/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice N.K. Balakrishnan granted anticipatory bail to the accused in an Essential Commodities Act case, directing surrender within 10 days and subject to magnetic or surety conditions, pending production before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail subject to surrender within 10 days and compliance with conditions regarding sureties, interrogation, passport production, and non-restriction of movement.

Gavaskar Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2518 of 2012 () -----------------------------CRIME NO.65/2012 OF KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION

¶6

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED:

¶7

GAVASKAR, S/O.SUBAIMAN, VALAVIL PUTHENVEEDUM PUNNAMKARIKKAKOM, POOVACHAL.P.O, VEERANAKKAVU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.M.HUSAIN SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.AJITH GEORGE

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.SREEJITH.V.S, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶15

B.A. No: 2518 of 2012

¶16

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2012

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No: 65/2012 of Kattakkada Police Station. The offences alleged against him are under sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 5 (a) of Kerala Rationing Order. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail.

¶19

The allegation is that when the lorry, driven by Navas, bearing No:KL-01 AG 3311 was intercepted and inspected by the Sales Tax Authorities, the lorry contained 73 bags of Raw Rice. Navas, who was driving the lorry was stated to have shown the bill dated 18.01.2012 stating that the rice so transported was covered by that bill. But that was found to be not true. The bill pertained to another load of Raw Rice brought from TamilNadu. Hence the petitioner who was shown as the consignee in that bill was shown as the accused.

¶20

B.A. No: 2518/2012

¶21

-2-

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶23

the rice covered by Annexure A-7 Invoice was actually delivered. It was transported through the lorry driven by Navas. Hence the invoice/bill (Annexure A-7) happened to be in the lorry. Navas who was the driver ought to have been made an accused, since it was he who was illegally transporting the ration articles which was seized by the officers. If, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not the person who was transporting the ration articles mentioned above, then certainly it is Navas who to explain regarding the same.

¶24

Considering all the aspects the following directions are issued:

¶25

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. After interrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate

¶26

B.A. No: 2518/2012

¶27

-3-

¶28

can, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioner but on the following conditions:

¶29

a. The accused shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶30

b. The accused shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and that he should appear before the Investigating Officer on all alternate

¶31

B.A. No: 2518/2012

¶32

-4-

¶33

Saturdays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶34

c. The accused shall produce his original passport before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶35

d. The accused will also file an affidavit that he will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that he will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

¶36

B.A. No: 2518/2012

¶37

-5-

¶38

disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶39

e. The accused and the sureties shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶40

f. The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licence etc.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶43

//True Copy//

¶44

P.A. to Judge

¶45

jjj

Gavaskar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gavaskar 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

Hamsa K.V Vs State of Kerala

B.S.Satheesh Shetty Vs Excise Range Officer

Ajithkumar Menon Vs State of Kerala

Jinesh Vs State of Kerala

M.R.Kumaran Vs C.I. of Police, Vigilance

Rajan Vs State of Kerala