Dismissed

Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Feb 2016Bail Appl./472/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an abkari bail application, a licence-holding petitioners sought release alleging no conscious possession. The Court rejected the plea, finding them unfit for bail as licensees cannot shirk culpability when prohibited spirit and arrack are recovered from their licensed premises. The bail application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioners denied pre-arrest bail.

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/21ST MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 472 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 242/2015 OF MAVELIKKARA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.4 TO 7 :

¶8

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

¶9

1. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 66 YEARS,

¶10

S/O.KRISHNAN, CHITTAKKATTATH HOUSE,

¶11

THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.

¶12

2. RAGHAVAN, AGED 84 YEARS,

¶13

S/O.PADMANABHAN, VAZHAKKUTTATHIL HOUSE,

¶14

VELLIKKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.

¶15

3. RAMESH,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUPANIKKAN

¶16

MULLASSERI THEKKATHIL HOUSE, NOORANADU VILLAGE,

¶17

MAVELIKKARA TALUK.

¶18

4. SURESH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, THAVALATHIL HOUSE, KURAMBALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶20

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶21

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

¶22

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶26

B.A.No.472 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2016

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are the licensees of a toddy shop No.9/2015-16. On 23.12.2015 at about 6.30 p.m. the Excise party conducted a search in the toddy shop. 4.5 litres of adulterated toddy mixed with spirit and 500 ml bottle containing 150 ml of arrack was recovered from the building. Hence, crime was registered as Crime No.242/2015 of Mavelikkara Excise Range for offence punishable under Sections 55(a), 55(i), 56(b), 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶30

The petitioners, contending that though the licence stands in their name, it was run by another person and that they had no conscious possession of any noxious substance, even if recovered, seek pre arrest bail. It was further contended that the question whether the toddy was mixed with arrack or spirit can only be found out by a chemical analysis.

¶31

¶32

B.A.No.472 of 2016

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶34

application. I am not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner for more reasons than one. Being the licensees they cannot shirk away from the culpability on a premise that business was being conducted by the 8^th accused. Further, even as per the search memo, toddy mixed with laced spirit was recovered. Another bottle with 150ml of arrack was also recovered.

¶35

Having regard to these facts, I feel that this

¶36

is not a fit case for granting pre arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶37

The bail application is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶40

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

P.A TO JUDGE

Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran 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

Giri Nair Vs State of Kerala

Ananthu Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Abbas Vs State of Kerala

Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Kripesh .K Vs State of Kerala