Allowed

Jayarajan @ Nanootty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2016Bail Appl./8386/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to the sole accused charged with illicit arrack production. The petitioner was found in possession of illicit wash and arrested subsequently. Considering the substantial part of the investigation was complete, the court ordered bail subject to surety conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner subject to executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and conditions regarding future conduct and witness interference.

Jayarajan @ Nanootty Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/21ST POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8386 of 2015 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 102/2015 OF KUTHUPARAMBA EXCISE RANGE, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

JAYARAJAN @ NANOOTTY, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.POOVAN KUNJAN, ARAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUVANCHERY AMSOM, POOVATHOOR DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.No.8386 of 2015

¶17

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.102/2015 of Kuthuparamba Excise Range for offences punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 16.11.2015 at about 5 p.m, the accused was found in possession of 100 liters of wash intended for distilling illicit arrack. He was arrested on the same day and is in custody since then.

¶21

Heard both sides and examined the report.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶23

application. However it is submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other cases of identical nature.

¶24

Considering the fact that the substantial part

¶25

of the investigation is over, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a

¶27

sum of `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)

¶28

B.A.No.8386 of 2015

¶29

¶30

with two solvent sureties for the like sum to

¶31

the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶32

(b) He shall not get involved in any other crime of identical nature.

¶33

¶34

the witnesses and shall also not interfere with the course of investigation.

¶35

The bail application is allowed.

¶36

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶39

Jayarajan @ Nanootty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayarajan @ Nanootty 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

Chandrashekaran Vs State of Kerala

Lithesh Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Mala

Nikhil Chandran @ Malu Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala