Partly allowed

Sreekumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2014Bail Appl./1705/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted bail to the 3rd accused in an excise case pending investigation, directing him to surrender within 10 days and outlining specific conditions including bond execution and appearance requirements.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to surrender within 10 days, bond execution with sureties, periodic interrogation appearance, passport production, and affidavit.

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 1705 of 2014 () ------------------------------CRIME NO. 171/2013 OF SASTHAMCOTTAH EXCISE RANGE OFFICE

¶5

APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO 3 :-

¶6

SREEKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, PARAMESWARATH, MUTHUKATTU KARA PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :-

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶10

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

jvt

¶13

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶14

B.A. No.1705 of 2014

¶15

Dated this the 14^th day of March 2014

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.171/2013 of Excise Range Office, Sasthamcotta. The offences alleged against him and other accused are punishable under Secs.55(a), 58, 55 (b), 57(a) and 67B of Abkari Act. A1 and A2 in that case were arrested and investigation is in progress.

¶18

The allegation against this petitioner is that he is a licensee of the toddy shop in Group No.IV of that Excise Range. It is stated that the seizure was from the house of the first accused, who was actually the former licensee of that shop. A2 was arrested along with A1.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that any spurious toddy was seized from the possession of this petitioner (A3). He was not present at the time and place of arrest of A1 and A2.

¶20

Considering all the aspects the following directions are issued:

¶21

B.A. No.1705 of 2014

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

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 will grant bail to the petitioner but on the following conditions:

¶24

a. The accused shall execute a bond for ₹25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. 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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

d. The accused will also file 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

¶28

B.A. No.1705 of 2014

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

in this case and will 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.

¶31

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

¶32

Sd/N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,

JU DGE.

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

Jvt

Sreekumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar 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

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Jayan Vs the State of Kerala

Suraj Soman Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Mon Vs State of Kerala

Binod Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala