Dismissed

Mathai @ Jobi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6875/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court refused relief because the Public Prosecutor opposed the application and there were materials to prima facie connect the accused with the commission of an offence under the Kerala Abkari Act.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail granted.

Mathai @ Jobi Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/11TH ASWINA, 1938 Bail Appl..No. 6875 of 2016 () -------------------------------

¶5

CRIME NO.68/2016 OF THANKAMANI EXCISE RANGE, IDUKKI.

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

MATHAI @ JOBI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, AAVIYIL HOUSE, PANICKANKUDY P.O., KONNATHADY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶10

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

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

mbr/

¶14

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

¶16

B.A. No. 6875 of 2016

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 03^rd day of October, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.

¶20

68 of 2016 of Excise Range, Thankamani, registered for the offence under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 4.8.2016 at about 10.30 a.m., the petitioner was found in possession of 180 litres of wash and other utensils for manufacturing arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. The petitioner ran away on seeing the Police.

¶22

The petitioner has filed this application

¶23

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed

¶26

the application. It appears that there are materials to

¶27

B.A. No. 6875 of 2015

¶28

-2-

¶29

prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. If the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application, there is embargo under Section 41A of the Abkari Act in granting the relief under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. If that be so, the inhibition will be more severe when an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is dealt with. Since the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application, I am not inclined to grant the relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, particularly when there are materials to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence.

¶30

In the result, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender before the court concerned and apply for regular bail, if so advised. If any such application is filed by the petitioner, after his surrender before the court and after giving copy of the application to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in advance, the learned

¶31

B.A. No. 6875 of 2015

¶32

-3-

¶33

Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the application for bail in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶34

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE

¶35

Mathai @ Jobi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathai @ Jobi 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

Ebenaizar Parker @ Bhaskar Vs State of Kerala

Rajmohan @ Vamban Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed Vs T.P.Hamsa

Ajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Subair Vs State of Kerala

Mini Vs State of Kerala