Dismissed

Baby @ Roshan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2014Bail Appl./6793/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court finds the case not a fit case for bail due to serious allegations but allows surrender within ten days to facilitate further investigation. No monetary amounts or other procedural details are required.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender before investigating officer within ten days; bail application dismissed.

Baby @ Roshan 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 B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/30TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6793 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 434/2014 OF MARAYUR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

BABY @ ROSHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.K.M.JOSEPH, KALLOORATH HOUSE, MEENACHIL TALUK, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682 031. (CRIME NO.434/2014 OF MARAYOOR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT).

¶12

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MARAYOOR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 620. (CRIME NO.434/2014 OF MARAYOOR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT).

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶17

¶18

B.A. No.6793 of 2014

¶19

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2014

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶22

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime

¶24

No.434/2014 of Marayoor Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

¶25

On 14.08.2014 at 8.45 p.m., the 1^st accused was

¶26

found in possession of 30 litres of IMFL in KDH Village. When the 1^st accused was questioned, it has come out that so much quantity of IMFL was given to him by the petitioner

¶27

who was then working in the outlet of the Beverages Corporation at Kovilkadavu on payment of an excess amount of ₹2,000/-.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

BA.6793/2014

¶30

: 2 :

¶31

It seems that the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the Managing Director of the Beverages Corporation on the ground that he has become an accused in an Abkari case like this. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no evidence to show that, that much quantity of IMFL was sold from the outlet of the Beverages Corporation where the petitioner was working. It is also argued that the name of the petitioner is not Baby whereas, another person named Baby was working during the particular period at the said outlet. These are matters which are to be enquired. The investigation of this case is not over. When there is such a serious allegation against the petitioner and it is substantiated the fact that such a quantity of IMFL sold from the Beverages Corporation was found in the possession of the 1^st accused, I am of the view that this is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted. At the same time, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel

¶32

BA.6793/2014

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

for the petitioner, I am satisfied that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation.

¶35

In the result, this bail application is dismissed. At the same time, if so advised, the petitioner may surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today and in such case, the investigating officer can interrogate the petitioner, effect recovery, if any, and conduct the investigation and produce the petitioner without delay before the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, where the petitioner can move for bail. In such case, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders, preferably on the same day itself, provided advance notice on such application has been given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor also.

¶36

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶37

aks/21/11

Baby @ Roshan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby @ Roshan 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

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Dhushar Vs State of Kerala

Usha Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Khaleefa Vs State of Kerala

Shamsudeen P Vs the Sub Inspector of Police