Partly allowed

Thilakamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jul 2012Bail Appl./4193/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, on an application for anticipatory bail in a case under the Kerala Abkari Act, granted bail subject to the petitioner surrendering before the Investigating Officer within 10 days and complying with conditions regarding sureties, passports, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within 10 days and compliance with conditions regarding sureties, passports, and conduct.

Thilakamma Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2012/18TH ASHADHA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 4193 of 2012 (D)

¶5

[CRIME NO.57/2012 OF NOORANADU EXCISE RANGE]

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

THILAKAMMA, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. SACHIVOTHAMMAN, KALEEKKAL HOUSE, ELIPPAKKULAM MURI, VALLIKKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA.

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H.

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Prv.

¶14

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶15

================== B.A.No. 4193 of 2012

¶16

========================= Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2012

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.57/2012 of Nooranad Excise Range. The offences alleged against her are under Secs.55(a) and 58 of Kerala Abkari Act. Apprehending arrest, this application is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶19

It is alleged that on 17.05.2012 at about 12.10PM the petitioner was found in possession of 200ml of illicit arrack and thus it is alleged that she has committed offence. She was not arrested then and there for want of woman police officer.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 200 ml of arrack stated to have been seized by the Excise Officials was from the house occupied by six persons and that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that the arrack was kept in the house. It is further submitted that

¶21

B.A.No.4193/2012

¶22

: 2 :

¶23

the quantity is only 200 ml and the petitioner is a woman aged about 54 years.

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

¶26

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.

¶27

B.A.No.4193/2012

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

b. The accused shall make herself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and that she should appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶30

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

¶31

d. The accused will also file an affidavit that she will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that she will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and that she 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 disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶32

B.A.No.4193/2012

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶37

das

Thilakamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thilakamma 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

D.P.Maheshwari Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Niyas Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Lalitha Vs State of Kerala

Haridasan.P. Vs State of Kerala

V.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala