Quashed

Rameshan v. the Excise Inspector

Kerala HC19 Oct 2012Crl.MC/3009/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Sessions Judge's order canceling the petitioner's bail. The Court held that non-disclosure of a turned-down anticipatory bail application or failure to report about it was not a valid ground for cancellation, as the investigating officer established no breach of bail conditions or violation of the Abkari Act.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-IV order cancelling the petitioner's bail granted by the magistrate was set aside and the petition disposed of.

Rameshan Vs the Excise Inspector — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/27TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3009 of 2012 ()

¶6

-------------------------CMP.NO.3270/2012 of SESSIONS COURT,KASARAGOD CMP.NO.5387/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,KASARAGOD

¶7

(CRIME NO.26/12 OF KASARAGODE EXCISE RANGE)

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:

¶9

RAMESHAN, S/O.MALINGAN, RESIDING AT BEHIND SREE GOPALAKRISHNA TEMPLE, VIVEKNANDA NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE, KASARAGOD - 671 121.

¶13

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

¶14

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RENJITH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

CRMC.NO.3009/2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD IN CMP.5387/12 DATED 26/7/12. ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS CRMP.3270/12 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT DATED 6/8/12. ANNEXURE III A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON. SESSIONS JUDGE DATED 4/9/12. ANNEXURE IV A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON. SESSIONS JUDGE IN CRMP.3270/12 DATED 11/9/12.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶26

----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.3009 OF 2012

¶27

------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2012

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Petitioner is one among the accused (A2) in a crime involving Abkari Offence which is now pending investigation. He was granted bail by the magistrate imposing some conditions. Subsequently, the investigating officer moved an application for cancellation of his bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code'. The main thrust made for cancellation was that when he applied for bail he did not report of his application for anticipatory bail previously moved before the Hon'ble High Court which was turned down with direction to appear before the investigating officer. He had also moved an application for quashing the criminal proceedings before the High Court and that too was later turned down. That aspect was also not stated or brought to the notice of the magistrate when he applied for bail, was the case canvassed for to cancel the bail granted to him. Learned Sessions Judge, before whom the application as above was moved under Section 439(2) of the Code

¶30

Crl.M.C No.3009/2012

¶31

¶32

gave notice to the petitioner/accused. After hearing both sides, Annexure – IV order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge cancelling the bail granted by the magistrate. Annexure – IV order would indicate that more than the grounds canvassed by the investigating officer for cancellation which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge was the impact of Section 41A of the Abkari Act in granting bail to an accused person involved in an Abkari offence. After looking into Annexure – IV order with reference to the facts and circumstances involved in the case also, I find, cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner on the circumstances canvassed by the investigating officer and also the reason stated by the Sessions Judge, is totally unjustified. Investigating officer has no case that the petitioner has flouted any of the conditions imposed for granting him bail or he has misused the liberty extended to him under the bail. Then, the question is whether there is any violation of the mandate covered by Section 41A of the Abkari Act in granting bail. Even the investigating officer has no such case and the accused was not called upon to answer that case when proceedings were initiated

¶33

Crl.M.C No.3009/2012 3

¶34

for the cancellation of bail. So much so, that also cannot be a ground for cancelling the bail already granted in favour of the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is even now complying with the direction given by the magistrate to appear before the investigating officer thrice a week. When such be the case, I find there is no justification for the investigating officer to seek cancellation of the bail on the premise that the petitioner did not report before the court the application moved earlier for anticipatory bail. Law does not insist for making such representations in the application for bail. The fact that he had previously applied for anticipatory bail and that was turned down by one or other ground is no ground for insisting particulars of the application so moved, to consider his bail application. Annexure – IV order is set aside.

¶35

Petition is disposed of.

¶36

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶37

vdv

Rameshan v. the Excise Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshan v. the Excise Inspector

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

Damodaran P. Vs Renu v.Nampoothiri

Mohan Das Vs State of Kerala

Sreekanth Vs State of Kerala

Anuroop K.K. Vs State of Kerala

C.Lalaji Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Ratnakaran Vs Excise Inspector, Thalassery