Allowed

Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2803/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, a fifth accused in an excise case involving spirit transportation. The court noted irregularities in the arraignments of other accused and the lack of material evidence other than statements from other accused, finding custody unnecessary at the preliminary stage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, conditioned to report to the investigating officer within one month.

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2803 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.54/2016 OF KARTHIKAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:

¶8

RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 46, SAJIN BHAVANAM, KARUVATTA.P.O, KARUVATTA, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

P.UBAID, J.

- - - - Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No. 54 of 2016 of the Karthikappally Excise Range, registered under Sections 55(a), 58 and 67 B of the Kerala Abkari Act. He is the fifth accused.

¶20

The prosecution case is that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found transporting 10 litres of spirit on a motor cycle on 31.3.2016 at about 3.30 p.m.. They were arrested by the Excise Officials on the spot, and the quantity of spirit was seized as per mahazar.

¶21

This application for pre-arrest bail is opposed

¶22

by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as

¶23

B.A.No. 2803 of 2016

¶24

-2-

¶25

part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶26

The accused Nos. 1 to 3 gave a statement that it was being transported as instructed by the licensee, who is the sixth accused. Accordingly, the licensee was also arraigned as the sixth accused. Anyway, the petitioner herein was also arraigned as the fifth accused in the crime. It is not known what is his complicity, or how he happened to be arraigned as accused. Proceedings against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 can be justified, because accused Nos. 1 to 3 are the persons who transported the spirit, and the sixth accused is said to be the licensee, who instructed the accused Nos. 1 to 3 to transport the spirit. It is submitted that the 4^th accused was also arraigned in the crime on the ground that some quantity of adulterated toddy was seized from his house. It is not known how he was also arraigned as accused in this crime. Seizure of the said quantity of toddy

¶27

B.A.No. 2803 of 2016

¶28

-3-

¶29

was from his house. He is neither the licensee nor an assoc ate of the licensee. Instead of registering a separate and i dependent crime against the fourth accused, who is alleg d to have possessed of adulterated toddy, he was also arraigned as accused in this crime. This irregularity amounting to illegality must be seriously considered by the Excise Officials when proceeding further in the matter. Anyway as against the petitioner herein, there is no material except the statement given by accused Nos. 1 to 3. I feel it appropriate to grant him pre-arrest bail in the above situation.

¶30

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 25,000/-₹ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 54 of 2016 of the Karthikappally Excise Range. Bail is

¶31

B.A.No. 2803 of 2016

¶32

-4-

¶33

granted on condition that;

¶34

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer for necessary interrogation as and when required by him, within a period of one month.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran 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

Teena Vs State of Kerala

Fazeel Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar Vs Station House Officer

Ratheesh V.P Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala