Allowed

Susheela v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2017Bail Appl./1752/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed pre-arrest bail application for a 60-year-old woman accused under the Kerala Abkari Act for storing wash. Court noted her cancer treatment and medical condition, holding custodial interrogation unnecessary. Bail granted subject to strict conditions including arrest warrant execution and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to conditions including appearance before I.O. within ten days if arrested, execution of bond with sureties, and non-interference with witnesses.

Susheela Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/11TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1752 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.37/2017 OF ADOOR EXCISE RANGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SUSHEELA, AGED 60, W/O.THANKAN, SANDHYA BHAVANAM, ELAMPALLIL PALLICKAL, ADOOR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, ADOOR EXCISE RANGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA.M.N

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶17

B.A. No.1752 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1.This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

2.The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.37 of 2017 of Adoor Excise Range. The aforesaid crime has been registered alleging offences punishable under sections 8(1) & (2) and 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077.

¶22

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 25.2.2017 at 9 p.m., reliable information was received by the Excise Inspector, Adoor Excise Range that wash meant for manufacturing arrack was stored in the house of the petitioner. A detailed search was conducted inside the house, but no contraband could be detected. An exhaustive search of the surrounding property revealed that five barrels, each

¶23

BA 1752/17 2

¶24

containing 35 litres of wash, and another barrel containing two litres of arrack were concealed under the leaves. As the petitioner was the nearby resident, crime was registered arraying her as the accused. The contraband articles were seized. However, though the petitioner was personally present there, she was not arrested.

¶25

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the crime was registered on 25.2.2017, the excise officials have not made an attempt to arrest the petitioner herein. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is a lady who is suffering from carcinoma and is undergoing treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.

¶26

5.The learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the application and submit that large quantity of wash was seized and there was every reason to suspect the involvement of the petitioner.

¶27

6.I have heard the rival submissions and have anxiously evaluated the facts.

¶28

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to a

¶29

BA 1752/17

¶30

¶31

decision of this Court in Chandrika v. State of Kerala & Another (2016 (3) KHC 968), contended that the prosecution had no explanation as to why the excise officers have not made an attempt to arrest the petitioner, though she was found in possession of contraband article as early as on 25.2.2017.

¶32

8.I take note of the fact that the petitioner is a sick lady and is undergoing treatment for cancer. It does not appear to me that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for an effective investigation. It is felt that bail can be granted by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶33

9.In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶35

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

¶36

BA 1752/17

¶37

¶38

dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶39

(iii) The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating officer and for all investigative purposes whenever required.

¶40

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶41

(v) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶42

(vi) If she surrenders before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶43

(vii) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned court on being noticed of that fact will be empowered to cancel the bail.

¶44

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶45

vps

Susheela v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheela 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajeeb M. Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Abdu Raheem Vs State of Kerala

Iqbal Vs State of Kerala

Pushpakumari Vs State of Kerala

Visalakshy Vs State of Kerala

Akhil R Vs State of Kerala