Dismissed

Rajesh @ Raju v. Excise Inspector

Kerala HC23 Feb 2012Crl.MC/382/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner accused under the Abkari Act sought a direction to hold a test identification parade. The court held that the investigating officer decides such procedural steps and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to surrender and apply for bail on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with direction to surrender and apply for bail on merits.

Rajesh @ Raju Vs Excise Inspector — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/4TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 382 of 2012 (c)

¶6

CRIME NO.27/2011 OF KUMBALA EXCISE RANGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ---------------------

¶8

RAJESH @ RAJU S/O.LATE SHEKARA.B.M., BHAGAVATHI NILAYA MAJIBAIL KATTE, KADAMBAR VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 EXCISE INSPECTOR

¶12

KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

amk

¶17

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.

¶18

Crl.M.C.NO. 382 OF 2012

¶19

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2012

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.27/2011 of the Kumbla Excise Range for offences under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, seeks an order to direct the first respondent to conduct test identification parade as part of the investigation.

¶22

Having heard, I find that in exercise of the powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigating officer cannot be dictated to conduct test identification parade. It is for the investigating officer to decide whether a test identification parade is required or not. In the event, there is no evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence alleged, he is entitled to an

¶23

Crl.M.C.NO. 382 OF 2012

¶24

¶25

order/judgment of acquittal.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would apprehend that without ascertaining the identity, the petitioner would be arrested. If that is the case of the petitioner, he can surrender either before the investigating officer or before the committal court and apply for bail apprising the lack of evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged.

¶27

In the result, this petition is dismissed, however with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and apply for bail which the learned Magistrate shall dispose of on merits preferably on the same day, provided due notice is given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶28

P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE

¶29

DSV/-

¶30

Crl.M.C.NO. 382 OF 2012 3

Rajesh @ Raju v. Excise Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh @ Raju v. 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

Yousuf Vs the State of Kerala

Janeesh Vs State of Kerala

Thresyamma Varghese Vs State of Kerala

N.Malathi Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith N. Vs the State of Erala

Haneefa E.V. Vs State of Kerala