Dismissed

Ratheesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2016Bail Appl./541/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala denied pre-arrest bail to petitioner Ratheesh, convicted under the Kerala Abkari Act for unauthorized toddy storage. The court noted the lack of a valid license and old seized inventory. It allowed consideration of further bail by the Magistrate upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail denied; surrender permitted with instruction to file another bail application before the learned Magistrate on the same day.

Ratheesh 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

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 541 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 73/2015 OF CHITTOOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

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

¶9

RATHEESH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MAYANKUTTY, THANIKUNDU HOUSE, KANNIMARI, MOOLATHARA, CHITTOOR, PALAKKADU.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J. SAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

msv/

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶17

B. A. No. 541 of 2016

¶18

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.73/2015 of Excise Range Office, Chittoor, Palakkad District for offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 55(d) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶21

The allegation of the prosecution is that, on a search conducted in the house of the defacto complainant on 20.09.2015 at 9.40 a.m., 277 litres of toddy collected in barrels and pots were found. Seizure mahazar was prepared and after completion of the initial formalities, crime was registered. The petitioner could not be apprehended. He seeks bail.

¶22

Heard and examined the records.

¶23

It appears that the petitioner had a license earlier to store and deal with toddy. But during the current year, he did not have any licence. Though a contention was set up by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the neighbours, who are toddy tappers had collected and kept the toddy in front of the house, the seizure mahazar indicates that it was very old toddy.

¶24

Having regard to the entire facts, I am not inclined to grant

¶25

B. A. No. 541 of 2016

¶26

¶27

the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. However, in the event of the petitioner surrendering before the learned Magistrate any bail application filed by the petitioner may be considered by the learned Magistrate on the same day itself, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

¶28

sd/-

¶29

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶30

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

PA to Judge

Ratheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh 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

Pramod K Vs State of Kerala

Chandu Vs State of Kerala

Kusalaksha Vs Station House Officer

Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer Vs the State of Kerala

K.a.Dhili Mon Vs State of Kerala