Dismissed

Sudheesh @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2015Bail Appl./1077/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail Application No. 1077 of 2015 dismissed. The High Court of Kerala refused anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. to a petitioner accused of manufacturing arrack using wash under the Kerala Abkari Act. The court held that identification by excise officers and local residents established a prima facie case, making it improper to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; petitioner may surrender if advised.

Sudheesh @ Kochumon Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/13TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1077 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 69/2014 OF KATTAPPANA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SUDHEESH @ KOCHUMON, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM @ BABU, VAZHAKUNNATHU HOUSE, VAZHAVARA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 508.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JAYARAJ NAMBIAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, (REP. BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KATTAPPANA-CR.NO.69/2014 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KATTAPPANA), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶16

----------------------

¶17

Bail Appl. No.1077 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 3^rd day of June 2015

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petition filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

The petitioner is alleged to have committed

¶22

the offence under Sec.55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The prosecution case is that on 05.12.2014 at 4.15 p.m., he was found manufacturing arrack using wash.

¶23

Heard both sides.

¶24

The application is opposed.

¶25

Learned counsel submits that the allegation

¶26

is false.

¶27

The Mahazar shows that on getting information that the petitioner was manufacturing arrack, the excise officers along with two residents in the locality went to the place of occurrence. There they so the petitioner manufacturing arrack using wash. On seeing the excise officers, the petitioner ran away.

¶28

The incident happened at 4.15 p.m. in the

¶29

evening. The excise officers could see the petitioner at a distance of 20 metres. So they had every opportunity to

¶30

Bail Appl. No.1077 of 2015 2

¶31

identify him. Moreover, it is seen that the local residents who are with the excise officers also identified the petitioner. So there is a prima facie case against him. It is not proper to grant him anticipatory bail.

¶32

In the result, the bail application is dismissed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶34

the petitioner will surrender before the investigating officer. He may do so if he is so advised.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶37

/ True Copy /

¶38

¶39

P.A. To Judge

Sudheesh @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh @ Kochumon 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

Sanoj S Vs State of Kerala

Laiju V.L. Vs State of Kerala

Ajesh Vs State of Kerala

Chacko Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Jayachandran Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Eattumanoor Police Station

Rajan Kunju Kunju Vs State of Kerala