Allowed

Lakshmi v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2016Bail Appl./1120/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, the second accused in an excise offence, subject to stringent conditions including a bond with sureties, non-interference with witnesses, and availability for interrogation, noting no prior similar convictions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to conditional bond execution with sureties, non-interference with investigation, and availability for interrogation.

Lakshmi Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/26TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1120 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 3/2016 OF AGALI EXCISE RANGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

LAKSHMI, W/O.VENKIDAJALAM, AGED 40 YEARS, VECHAPPATHI OORU, ATTAPPADI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, AGALI EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H.JASMINE

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶16

¶17

B.A.1120 of 2016

¶18

- - - - Dated 16^th March, 2016

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre arrest bail.

¶22

2.The petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in crime No.3 of 2016 of Agali Excise Range. The offence alleged are under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.

¶23

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 5.1.2016, 72 litres of wash in four plastic containers of 18 litres each and 10 litres of arrack in 20 litres white can, were found in front of a shed maintained by one Nanchan, the 1^st accused in the crime, who allegedly is the husband of the petitioner.

¶24

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

5.The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner

¶26

B.A.1120/16

¶27

¶28

is in fact married to one Venkidajalam and she has nothing to do with the 1^st accused. It is further asserted that the property from where the contraband articles were seized does not stand in her name. Based on the Voters I.D card and the Aadhar Card, it is pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioner is residing elsewhere and it is based on the false assumptions that she has been arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid crime .

¶29

6.The learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the contentions and would submit that the investigation revealed that the petitioner is the wife of the 1^st accused and she has a role to play in the commission of the offence. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the property, where the shed is situated, stand in the name of one Vellangiri and the same is being managed by the 1^st accused and being his wife , the petitioner was arrayed as an accused.

¶30

B.A.1120/16

¶31

¶32

It is not reported that the petitioner herein is involved in other offence of similar nature.

¶33

7.Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the antecedents of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the relief sought for can be granted to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions.

¶34

i). The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on her executing a bond for 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if she is arrested by the police in connection with this case.

¶35

ii). The petitioner shall 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/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶36

iii). The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶37

B.A.1120/16

¶38

iv). The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶39

v). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶40

vi). In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional magistrate shall be empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶41

The bail application is allowed as above.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶44

Mrcs/16.3.2016

¶45

//True Copy//

¶46

P.S.To Judge

Lakshmi v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi v. the 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

Praveen A.R Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Valsarajan Vs State of Kerala

Sheela Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Afsal Vs State of Kerala

Selvaraj Vs State of Kerala

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala