Allowed

Dijeeh P.D @ Kannan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016Bail Appl./107/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, disposed of a bail application filed by an accused indicted under the Abkari Act. The accused was found in possession of arrack. The court granted bail subject to conditions regarding bond execution, non-indictment for other offenses, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner subject to conditions of bond with sureties and non-interference with investigation.

Dijeeh P.D @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 107 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 223/2015 OF SULTHAN BATHERY EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, WAYANAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

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

¶9

DIJEEH P.D @ KANNAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARAN, PULAYAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, MUTHIKUNNU, NOOLPUZHA, BATTERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.SHYAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, (REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, SULTAN BATTERY EXCISE RANGE-CRIME NO.223/2015), REPRESENTED BY STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶18

B.A.No. 107 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner stands indicted for offence punishable under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act in Crime No.223/2015 of Sultan Battery Excise Range.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution is that, on

¶23

07.12.2015 at about 12.45 p.m, the accused was found in possession of 20 liters of arrack in a 35 liter can. He was arrested at the spot and is in custody since then. He seeks bail.

¶24

Heard both sides and examined the records.

¶25

The allegation against the petitioner is

¶26

serious. However, the learned Public Prosecutor

¶27

submitted that, he is not involved in any other crime. The investigation has substantially progressed.

¶28

Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to

¶29

grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶30

(a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for

¶31

`50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with

¶32

B.A.No. 107 of 2016

¶33

¶34

two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶35

(b) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other identical offence, and the involvement if any, will be a ground for seeking cancellation

¶36

of bail.

¶37

¶38

or intimidate the witnesses and shall also not

¶39

interfere with the course of investigation.

¶40

The bail application is allowed.

¶41

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶44

Dijeeh P.D @ Kannan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dijeeh P.D @ Kannan 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

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Badusha Vs State of Kerala

Rameshan K. Vs State of Kerala

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

K.M. Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala

Rabiyath Vs State of Kerala