Dismissed

Kelothukandy Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Feb 2016Bail Appl./743/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a second bail application, the Court dismissed the prayer despite the court accepting that the property licensor held a valid license. The Court held that the agreement placed absolute possession and business risk on the petitioners, negating the license's relevance.

What did the court decide?

The second bail application preferred by the accused nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed.

Kelothukandy Raveendran Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 743 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 256/2014 OF KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. KELOTHUKANDY RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KADUNGAN, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KELOTHKANDI HOUSE, PATHIKKAL, P.O.NARIKODE, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 693.

¶9

2. KANDYAN PAVITHRAN, S/O.CHATHOOTTY, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT THENKESA PURAYIL HOUSE, PATHIKKAL, P.O.NARIKODE, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 693.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶17

B.A.No.743 of 2016

¶18

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This is the second bail application preferred by accused nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.256/2014 of Kolavallur Police Station for offences punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

¶21

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2014 at about 11.40 a.m, on getting secret information about the storing of explosives in a property, a search was conducted and huge quantity of explosives were detected. Crime was registered. They moved a bail application, which was dismissed by this Court by order in B.A No.6403/2014 holding that the petitioners did not have have any license and that they were holding the property on the strength of an agreement with another person Mr.Janardhanan. The present application is preferred by the petitioners on a premise that the one crucial fact could not be brought to the notice of the court earlier namely that the said Mr.Janardhanan possessed

¶22

B.A.No.743 of 2016

¶23

¶24

valid license produced as Annexure-A3.

¶25

I am not impressed by the above argument

¶26

since the license deed itself indicates that the petitioners herein were put in absolute possession of the property and they were to conduct the business at their risk and cost. That did not permit them to store explosives on the strength of a license that was granted to the licensor. Hence, there is no change in circumstances warranting an interference.

¶27

The bail application is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶29

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

P.A. TO JUDGE

Kelothukandy Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kelothukandy Raveendran 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

Latheef Vs State of Kerala

K.Lakshmanan Vs State of Kerala

Bijo Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Shamsudheen Vs State of Kerala

Tiju Mathew Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Akkarakarathi Padmini Vs the State of Kerala