Allowed

B.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2016Bail Appl./7867/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application for the sole accused facing charges under the Abkari Act for possession of wash intended for arrack manufacture. The court considered the quantity involved and custody duration, granting bail on conditions including a bond, appearance before the Investigating Officer, and a prohibition against similar future offences.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on conditions: bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, appearance before IO on Tuesdays for two months, no involvement in further identical offences.

B.Ramachandran 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

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7867 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 120/2015 OF HOSDURG EXCISE RANGE, KASARGOD.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

B.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 48, S/O.DAMODHARAN, KANATHUMOOLA, BENGAD DESOM, PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, HOSDURG EXCISE RANGE, (CR NO 120/2015) REP. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.No.7867 of 2015

¶17

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The sole accused in Crime No.120/2015 of Excise Range, Hosdurg is the petitioner herein. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2015 at about 5.30 p.m, he was found in possession of 130 liters of wash intended for the purpose of manufacturing arrack. After completion of the usual formalities, he was arrested and he is in custody since then, he seeks bail.

¶20

Heard both sides and examined the records.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions

¶22

submitted that the accused is involved yet another case of offence under Section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act. It seems that case was of the year 2012. Apart from that, there is no other case registered against the petitioner herein.

¶23

Having regard to the quantity involved and

¶24

the fact that he is in custody since 19.11.2015. I am inclined to take a lenient view and to grant bail to the

¶25

B.A.No.7867 of 2015

¶26

¶27

petitioner on the following conditions:

¶28

(a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for

¶29

`50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶30

(b) He shall not get involved in any other identical offence, and the involvement if any, will be a ground for seeking cancellation of bail.

¶31

¶32

10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of his release.

¶33

The bail application is allowed.

¶34

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶37

B.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ramachandran 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

Mini Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

B.Christopher Vs Ushan Sudevan

Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri.Kallidumbil Abdul Rahiman

Shaji K.A Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Nishanth G.Tharakan Vs State of Kerala