Allowed

Vijayan K.R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2016Bail Appl./44/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 1 and 2 in a prosecution under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act for adding starch to toddy. The court deemed custodial interrogation unwarranted and imposed conditions regarding interrogation attendance and non-re-offending.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including appearance before IO, bond execution, and non-commitment of other offences.

Vijayan K.R 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

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 44 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 64/2015 OF KANJIRAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2 :

¶8

1. VIJAYAN K.R., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN, KURUMAKKAL HOUSE, PALAPRA KARA, EDAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK.

¶9

2. SHAJI M.N., AGED 54 YEARS,NARAYANAN, MUKALEL HOSUE, EDAMATTOM MARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,

¶10

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

=================

B.A.No.44 of 2016

¶20

=================

¶21

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.64 of 2015 of Kanjirappally Excise Range, Kottayam for offence punishable under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶24

The allegation of the prosecution is that on a search conducted, samples were taken from the toddy shop of the second petitioner by the excise officials. The sample was found to contain starch. On the basis of the above, crime was registered. Essentially, the question is whether starch has been added into toddy. The fact that the second petitioner herein is the licensee and the first petitioner is his employee is not seriously in dispute. The question whether the sample contained starch is a matter of chemical analysis report. Considering these facts, I feel that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted and hence, bail can be granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions.

¶25

(i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today

¶26

B.A.44/16

¶27

¶28

and shall undergo interrogation. If they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each.

¶29

(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶30

(iii) They shall not get involved in any other identical offences and shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant and his witnesses.

¶31

The anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

¶32

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶33

Sbna/18/1/16

¶34

True Copy

¶35

P A to Judge

Vijayan K.R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan K.R 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

Sreenath M.P Vs State

Vishnu Anandan Vs State of Kerala

Baveesh Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh M. Vs State of Kerala

Sajimon Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala