Dismissed

Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6890/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala heard a bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC for pre-arrest bail in an excise case involving the sale of toddy mixed with starch. The court refused bail, deeming custodial interrogation necessary for investigation since the case was at a preliminary stage.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail dismissed; petitioners advised to surrender.

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6890 of 2016 ----------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 59/2016 OF KUNNAMKULAM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, TRISSUR

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED:

¶9

1. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O VASU, MAMARAKKATTIL VEEDU, MUNDATHIKODE VILLAGE, MUNDATHIKODE DESHOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR.

¶10

2. E.N.RAJEESH, AGED 35 YEARS,S/O NARAYANAN, EZHTUPURAIKKAL VEETTIL, ANJUR DESHOM, ANJUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN SMT.M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.A.ANAS

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.V.

P.UBAID, J.

B.A.No.6890 of 2016

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2016

¶21

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under

¶22

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.59/2016 of the Kunnamkulam Excise Range, registered under Sections 56(b) and 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶23

The prosecution case is that on 30.04.2016,

¶24

the petitioners have found selling toddy mixed with starch at

¶25

the licensed toddy shop of the 2^nd petitioner, the Manager of which is the 1^st petitioner. It stands now settled that adding starch to toddy will constitute an offence punishable under the law, and it is non-bailable too.

¶26

This application for pre-arrest bail is opposed

¶27

by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part

¶28

B.A.No.6890 of 2016 2

¶29

of investigation, and that, if the accused are now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶30

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the

¶31

materials including the case diary and the report of the investigating officer, I find that some more things remain to be done by the police as part of investigation, and some more witnesses remain to be questioned. I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation in this case, and I find that the accused will influence or intimidate the witnesses if they are granted prearrest bail. However, if the petitioners so opt, they can surrender before the investigating officer or before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. After necessary interrogation, the request for regular bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. In the particular facts and circumstances of the case including the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged, and also the stage of investigation, I find that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief of

¶32

B.A.No.6890 of 2016 3

¶33

pre- arrest bail can be granted.

¶34

In the result, this application for anticipatory

¶35

bail is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/P. UBAID, JUDGE

¶37

sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakaran 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

Danish Majeed Vs State of Kerala

Tony @ Antony Vs the State of Kerala

Muhamed Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Vaishnav Unnithan Vs State

Niyas Vs State of Kerala

B.Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala