Allowed

Devidasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2016Bail Appl./486/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by an accused person charged with offences under Sections 13 and 55(i) of the Abkari Act. The petitioners alleged violation of statutory licensing conditions regarding storage location, and the court imposed standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to execution of bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, appearance before IO, and non-interference with witnesses.

Devidasan Vs 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

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 486 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 643/2015 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

DEVIDASAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O RAMAN, 'SOUMYADHA', ERAVIMANGALAM.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶13

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

¶14

mbr/

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.No.486 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the 5^th accused in Crime No.643/2015 of Kolathur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 13 and 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner who is the Manager of a licensed toddy shop, and on 21.09.2015 at about 5.00 p.m, had stored 420 litres of toddy in another building. The toddy was seized by the Excise party and crime was registered. According to the prosecution, the investigation ultimately led to the complicity of the petitioner herein along with others.

¶21

It appears that the only allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner had stored toddy for illegal purpose outside the place mentioned in the license. This issue is covered by the decisions reported in Rajan &

¶22

others v. State of Kerala & another in 2010(3) KLT

¶23

461 and Jith & others v. State of Kerala in 2013(3)

¶24

KHC 138. Hence, it appears to be a essentially a violation

¶25

of the statutory conditions. The prosecution has no case

¶26

B.A.No.486 of 2016

¶27

¶28

that the toddy was laced with any noxious substance.

¶29

Having regard to these fact, I feel that the

¶30

petitioner can be granted bail subject to the following conditions:

¶31

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶32

(b) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶33

(c ) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶34

The bail application is allowed.

¶35

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶36

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

P.A. TO JUDGE

Devidasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidasan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaisakh Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Thyagarajan Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprakasan G. Vs the State of Kerala