Allowed

Vinod v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2016Bail Appl./485/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On bail application in a case for possession of IMFL intended for sale, the High Court of Kerala inclined to grant bail subject to execution of bond with two sureties, appearance before Investigating Officer, and non-interference with witnesses. No other cases on record.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to bond of Rs. 40,000 with two sureties, appearance before Investigating Officer, and no interference with witnesses or investigation.

Vinod Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/5TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 485 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 40/2016 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION , THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

VINOD, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.VISWANATHAN, PARAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAYYAPPILLY MOOLA, PUTHUR.P.O., THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶10

SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

¶11

SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF, OLLUR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

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

B.A.No.485 of 2016

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.40 of 2016 of

¶24

Ollur Police Station for offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

¶25

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 03.01.2016 at 10 p.m., accused was found in possession of 1.350 litres of IMFL intended for sale. He was arrested from the spot and is in custody since then. He seeks bail.

¶26

Heard and examined the records.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Having regard to the above fact, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶28

(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶29

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶30

B.A.485/16

¶31

¶32

(iii) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant and the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation.

¶33

(iv) He shall not get involved in any other identical offences.

¶34

The bail application is allowed as above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶37

Sbna/25/1/16

¶38

True Copy

¶39

P A to Judge

Vinod v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

T J Thomas Vs State

A.Salam Vs the State of Kerala

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

Dilshad P. Vs State of Kerala

Nasarudheen M.U Vs the State of Kerala

Binu Vs State of Kerala