Allowed

Seby Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2017Bail Appl./330/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second bail application by an accused charged under section 55(i) of the Abkari Act for selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The court granted bail after the investigating officer confirmed that the seized liquor was genuine and within permissible limits, citing the earlier omission in the seizure report as a change of circumstances. Conditions of surrender and regular repo

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties; ordered to cooperate, report every Tuesday between 10.00 am and 11.00 am for one month, and not influence witnesses or tamper with evi

Seby Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/29TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 330 of 2017 ()

¶6

Bail Appl. 8921/2016 DATED 30-12-2016

¶7

CRIME NO. 184/2016 OF ALUVA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶9

SEBY MATHEW AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.P.P.MATHEW, PERUMAYAN HOUSE, SREEMOLANAGARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA M.N.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1901-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

A.M.BABU, J.

B.A.330 of 2017

- - - - Dated 19^th January, 2017

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1.The accused accused of an offence under section 55(i) of the Abkari Act is the petitioner. He apprehends his apprehension in C.R.no.184/2016 of the excise range, Aluva. Bail is sought under section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

2.The prosecution case is that at 1.15 p.m on 28.11.2016 the petitioner was found selling Indian made foreign liquor. It is alleged that he dropped the plastic kit in which the liquor bottles were kept and ran away.

¶24

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

4.This is the second application for bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the very

¶26

¶27

BA.330/17

¶28

same petitioner in the very same crime case. The earlier one was B.A.8921/2016. I dismissed it on 30.12.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain vital matters were not brought to my notice when I disposed of the earlier application.

¶29

5.As is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the seizure mahazar does not describe the details of the labels on the liquor bottles. When this was brought to my notice a couple of days ago when this application was heard, I requested the learned Public Prosecutor to get a report from the investigating officer regarding the labels on the bottles allegedly seized in this case. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained a report. I read it. It states that the liquor was purchased from an outlet of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. It is also stated in the report that the particulars of the labels were omitted to be written in the

¶30

¶31

BA.330/17

¶32

seizure mahazar. Thus, admittedly, genuine Indian made foreign liquor was seized in this case. The quantity of liquor allegedly possessed by the petitioner was within the permissible limit. In these circumstances, I consider that there has been a change of circumstances. I am therefore inclined to grant bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with C.R.no.184/2016 of the excise range, Aluva, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. He shall make himself available for interrogation. He shall report to the investigating officer between 10.00 am and 11.00 am on every Tuesday for a period of one month and thereafter as and when required by the investigating officer till the filing of

¶34

¶35

BA.330/17

¶36

the final report. Petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or try to influence them. He shall not destroy evidence or tamper with it. The learned Magistrate is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in the event of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above. If for any reason the petitioner chooses to surrender before the Magistrate, this order shall not have any effect and the learned Magistrate will act in accordance with law as if this order has not been passed.

¶37

Sd/A.M.BABU Judge

¶38

Mrcs/19.1.2017

¶39

//True copy//

¶40

P.S to Judge

Seby Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seby Mathew 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

Binoy N.S. Vs State of Kerala

Vandhana L.Soman Vs M.S.Pramodkumar

Sakthan Kuries and Loans Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Koshy Thomas Vs Jabir K.v.T., S/O.Assinar N.

Jinshad Vs State of Kerala

Fr. K.O. Thomas Vs State of Kerala