Dismissed

Kali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2017Bail Appl./1434/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding possession of IMFL, holding that a prima facie case existed and the quantity seized indicated illegal purpose, outweighing the petitioner's age and illness.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed as a prima facie case was made out and quantity seized indicated unlawful purpose.

Kali Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/1ST CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1434 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2/2017 OF THRITHALA EXCISE RANGE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

KALI, W/O. CHAKKUNNI, AGED 67 YEARS, NELLEPPULLYPPADI, KOTHACHIRA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.A.P.BEELAMMA

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, THRITHALA EXCISE RANGE, PALAKKAD, (CR.NO.2/2017 OF THRITHALA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU S

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶16

B.A.No.1434 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Petitioner is the accused in C.R.No.2 of 2017 of Thrithala

¶21

Excise Range Office registered for the offence under Section 55(i)

¶22

of the Abkari Act.

¶23

The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found to

¶24

be in possession of 28.50 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.

¶25

The learned counsel submits that the allegation is false.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶27

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

28.50 litres of Inidan Made Foreign Liquor was seized from the lean to of the petitioner's house. There is a prima facie case against her. The quantity of the liquor seized itself indicates the purpose for which it was kept. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a 67 year old woman, which may be taken into consideration. It is also submitted that she has some illness.

¶29

They are no grounds to grant anticipatory bail in this case. The court cannot ignore the restrictions imposed by the legislature in

¶30

B.A.No.1434 of 2017

¶31

¶32

Section 41 A of the Abkari Act. This application cannot be allowed.

¶33

In the result, this application is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶36

¶37

/True copy/

¶38

P.A. to Judge

Kali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kali 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

Ummer Sakafi Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Sakafi Vs State of Kerala

Jamaluddeen Vs State of Kerala

Rajith Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs the State of Kerala

Jobin.P.v Vs the Sub Inspector of Police