Allowed

Akkarakarathi Padmini v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Feb 2016Bail Appl./905/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a single judge order, granted bail to an accused charged under the Kerala Abkari Act for possession of arrack, subject to standard conditions including execution of bond and appearance before the investigation officer.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner subject to conditions: bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, appearance before IO, no interference with witnesses, and no further identical offences.

Akkarakarathi Padmini Vs the 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

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 905 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 7/2016 OF PAPPINISSERY EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:

¶8

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

¶9

AKKARAKARATHI PADMINI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.K.V.KRISHNAN, ARATHIPARAMBU, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.JOSE ANTONY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, (EXCISE INSPECTOR, PAPPINISSERI EXCISE RANGE CRIME NO.7/2016), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶15

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

¶16

msv/

¶17

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶18

B.A.No.905 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.7/2016 of Pappinisseri excise Range, Kannur for offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of Kerala Abkari Act.

¶22

According to the prosecution on 27.01.2016 at 4.30 p.m., the petitioner was found in possession of 5 litres of arrack. He was intercepted, searched and after initial formalities, crime was registered. She is in custody since then. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

¶23

Having regard to the fact that she is in custody since 27.01.2016, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶24

(a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each

¶25

to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶26

B.A.No.905 of 2016

¶27

¶28

(b) He shall appear before the Investigating

¶29

Officer as and when called for.

¶30

(c) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant and the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation.

¶31

(d) He shall not get involved in any other identical offences.

¶32

The bail application is allowed.

¶33

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶34

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.A. TO JUDGE

Akkarakarathi Padmini v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akkarakarathi Padmini v. the 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

Kelothukandy Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Tiju Mathew Vs the Sub Inspector of Police