Dismissed

Lijo v. Circle Inspector of Excise

Kerala HC4 Dec 2013Bail Appl./7540/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected a bail application for a petitioner accused of NDPS offences. The court held that the nature of allegations justified interrogation and denied pre-arrest bail, directing the petitioner to surrender to the investigating officer instead.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail denied; petitioner directed to surrender to the investigating officer.

Lijo Vs Circle Inspector of Excise — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7540 of 2013

¶6

CRIME NO. 33/2013 OF ANGAMALY EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

LIJO, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. LONAPPAN, VADAKKEN VEEDU, VENGOOR KARA, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GIMMY P. ANTONY

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

KERALA STATE, REP. BY C.I. OF EXCISE, ANGAMALY, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Kss

¶15

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶16

========================= Bail Application No. 7540 of 2013 ============================ Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2013

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 33 of 2013 of the Angamaly Excise Range Office for the offences punishable under Secs.20(b) IIA, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 27.08.2013 at about 04:30 p.m., the Excise Officials found the petitioner riding on the pillion of a motor cycle which the first accused was riding. The motor cycle was intercepted. The petitioner who was holding two plastic bags ran away from the scene. 50 gms. of ganja was seized from the possession of the first accused. The first accused in his statement told the Excise Officials that the plastic bags carried by the petitioner contained ganja. It is submitted that interrogation of the petitioner is required.

¶20

B.A No.7540 of 2013

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel has submitted that the allegations are not true. The petitioner is not connected with the first accused and has not travelled on the pillion of the motor cycle.

¶23

Those matters are required to be found out by the Investigating Officer. Having regard to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to think the petitioner could be granted pre-arrest bail. Petitioner may surrender before the investigating officer. If the petitioner surrenders, after interrogation, he shall be produced before the court concerned at the earliest where the petitioner can move for bail.

¶24

Application is disposed of with the above observations.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶27

//true copy//

¶28

P.A. to Judge

¶29

Smv

Lijo v. Circle Inspector of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lijo v. Circle Inspector of Excise

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

Praveen K.Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Sajeesh Vs the State of Kerala

T.Santha Vs Excise Inspector, Excise Range

Harshad.J.R Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor Vs State of Kerala