Allowed

Vanajakshy Amma v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2014Bail Appl./2569/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to the first accused, a 64-year-old woman, in a case involving offenses under the Essential Commodities Act. Bail was allowed subject to surrendering for interrogation and executing a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioner; directed to surrender for interrogation; to execute bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties.

Vanajakshy Amma Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2569 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 2974/2013 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED:

¶8

VANAJAKSHY AMMA, AGED 64 YEARS, VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUTTIKKAD (PO), KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶16

Bail Appl.No. 2569 of 2014 ()

¶17

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.2974 of 2013 of the Kottarakkara Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Rule 5(a) of the Kerala Rationing Order, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

¶20

2.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on the relevant day and time the police seized a lorry carrying 210 bags of rice and when the driver and cleaner of that lorry were questioned, it was revealed that the rice is removed from the godown of the petitioner, a licencee for wholesale of ration articles. The removal was arranged by the second accused, salesman of the petitioner.

¶21

3.The learned counsel submitted that the allegations are

¶22

¶23

Bail Appl.No. 2569 of 2014 ()

¶24

not true. Immediately after the alleged seizure, the supply officials inspected godown of the petitioner and found excess quantity of ration rice. It is pointed out that the second accused filed B.A. No.2270 of 2014 which this Court disposed of with directions.

¶25

4.Having regard to the relevant circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady aged about 64 years, I am satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to conditions so that investigation of the case is not affected and the investigating officer may have to look into whether excess quantity of ration rice was found in the godown of the petitioner and if so, under what circumstances.

¶26

The application is allowed as under :

¶27

Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime

¶28

Bail Appl.No. 2569 of 2014 ()

¶29

¶30

No.2974 of 2013 on 06.06.2014 at

¶31

about 10 am for interrogation.

¶32

In case interrogation is not completed that day, the petitioner shall appear before the officer investigating the case any other day/days at all reasonable time and place as directed by the investigating officer.

¶33

The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the case.

¶34

It is open to the petitioner to produce all relevant records in her custody, control and possession before the officer investigating the case.

¶35

5.In case the petitioner is arrested, she shall be released by the arresting officer (if not required to be detained otherwise) on her executing bond for

¶36

Bail Appl.No. 2569 of 2014 ()

¶37

¶38

`20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each before the arresting officer and subject to the following conditions:

¶39

a. One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner

¶40

b. Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation at all reasonable time and place.

¶41

c. Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any of the witnesses. d. Petitioner shall not get involved in similar offence during the period of this bail.

¶42

f. In case any of conditions Nos.(b) to (d) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the jurisdictional magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in

¶43

Bail Appl.No. 2569 of 2014 ()

¶44

¶45

P.K.Shaji v.State of Kerala [AIR 2006 SC

¶46

100].

¶47

sd/THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶48

AMV

¶49