Allowed

Jose C.T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2017Bail Appl./263/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a bail application filed by an accused charged under Section 58 of the Abkari Act for selling liquor meant for Karnataka. Weighing medical unfitness and lack of continued custody necessity, the Court allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a bond of Rs. 50,000/-, two sureties, strict reporting hours, and restrictions on intoxication and influence on witnesses.

Jose C.T 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 A.M.BABU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 263 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 4343/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,MATTANNUR DATED 16-12-2016 CRIME NO. 159/2016 OF IRITTY EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

JOSE C.T S/O THOMAS, 49/16, CHERUVILA PUTHAN VEEDU, AYYAMKUNNU AMSOM DESOM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.) SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING EXCISE INSPECTOR IRITTY, IRITTY EXCISE RANGE.

¶12

R BY ADV.MAYA M.N, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.NO.263 OF 2017

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶17

A1-TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CMP NO.4343/2016 DATED 16.12.2016 OF THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANNUR

¶18

A2-TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 2.4.2016 A3-TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.3.2016 A4-TRUE COPY OF BA 9121/2016 DT 27.12.2016

¶19

A5-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 7.1.2017 FILED BEFORE THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER ,TRIVANDRUM.

¶20

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

SKS

P.A TO JUDGE

A.M.BABU, J.

-----------------------------B.A.NO. 263 OF 2017

¶27

Dated 16^th January, 2017

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Petitioner is in custody. He is the accused in crime no.159/2016 of

¶30

the excise range, Iritty. He is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sec.58 of the Abkari Act. He seeks bail under Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶31

The prosecution case is that the petitioner possessed 15 litres of Indian made foreign liquor. It is said that he carried 40 bottles of liquor.

¶32

It is also said that he was arrested at 9.00 a.m on 14.12.2016. The

¶33

prosecution alleges that the liquor seized from the petitioner was meant for sale in the State of Karnataka only.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶35

Public Prosecutor.

¶36

Grant of bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner was arrested on 14.12.2016. I have dismissed his application, namely, B.A 9121/2016, on 27.12.2016. I perused the case diary on that day. It showed materials against the petitioner. 15 litres of Indian made foreign liquor meant for sale in the State of Karnataka only was allegedly

¶37

¶38

seized from his possession. When I dismissed the earlier bail application, the investigation was in progress. Today I am told by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is still going on. But what remains to be completed is to get the report of chemical examination and the filing of the final report. The petitioner has been in custody since over a month. Medical prescriptions have been produced to show that he is ailing. I do not think the continued custody of the petitioner necessary. I am therefore inclined to grant bail under Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The learned Public Prosecutor requests to impose stringent conditions. I shall keep that too in mind.

¶39

In the result, the bail application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate who has jurisdiction to commit the case to the Court of Session. The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 11.a.m on every Monday for a period of three months even if the final report is filed in the meantime. The petitioner shall not intimidate or try to influence witnesses. He shall not destroy evidence or tamper with it. He shall not

¶40

¶41

involve in any abkari offence whilst on bail. The learned Magistrate/Sessions Judge is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in the event of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above.

¶42

sks/16.1.2017 A.M.BABU Judge

Jose C.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose C.T 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

Chandrahasa Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Jalaludeen Vs State of Kerala

Jaseel Vs State of Kerala

Naga @ Nagamma Vs State of Kerala

Rahila Beevi Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Uvais Haji Vs State of Kerala