Dismissed

Pramod D. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2017Bail Appl./6252/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed for alleged distilling of arrack. The court held that investigation report clearly connected the petitioner with the crime and it was not a fit case for bail. Petitioner was advised to surrender and consider bail thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; petitioner advised to surrender within ten days.

Pramod D. Vs the 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/17TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6252 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1315/2017 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

PRAMOD D, KALANGUVILA,KOTTATHALA,VENDAR.P.O,PUTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, PUTHOOR POLICE STATION.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.SAJJU

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶17

B.A. No.6252 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2017

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

~~~~~~

¶21

1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

¶22

Criminal Procedure.

¶23

2.The petitioner herein is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1315 of 2017 of Puthoor Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 8(1) (2), 55(g) and 55(h) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶24

3.According to the prosecution, on 16.8.2017, at about 11 p.m., the petitioner herein and two others were found distilling arrack in the property belonging to the petitioner. Utensils and other paraphernalia along with 300 litres of wash and 3 litres of arrack were seized by the police.

¶25

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is totally innocent and he has been

¶26

BA.No.6252/2017

¶27

¶28

falsely implicated. Reliance is placed on Annexure-1 interim order to bring home the point that the petitioner's wife had initiated proceedings before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27046/2016 against the functioning of illegal quarry by one Chandranandan. According to the learned Counsel, the aforesaid quarry owner was instrumental in persuading the police officers to rope him in. Reference is also made Annexure-2 and 3, being the complaints preferred by the petitioner's wife against the aforesaid Chandranandan. It is further submitted that the petitioner's father had breathed his last quite recently and prays for issuance of orders in terms of the petition.

¶29

5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that the investigation revealed that distilling of arrack was carried out in the premises belonging to the petitioner himself. Two vehicles were found in the premises and on investigation, it was found

¶30

BA.No.6252/2017

¶31

¶32

that the vehicles were registered in the name of the father of the 2^nd accused and that of the 3^rd accused.

¶33

6.I have considered the rival submissions. The submission of the petitioner that he is totally innocent cannot be countenanced. The investigation conducted by the police clearly connects him with the crime.

¶34

7.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the quantity of the contraband seized, the materials relied on by the prosecution and other facts, it does not appear to me that this is a fit case where this Court will be justified in granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner herein.

¶35

8.At this stage, the learned counsel prays that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. If the petitioner is so advised, he may surrender before the investigating officer, within ten days from today. If he so surrenders, he shall be interrogated

¶36

BA.No.6252/2017

¶37

¶38

and shall be produced before the court having jurisdiction on the same day itself. If an application for bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits.

¶39

The application is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶41

ps/7/11/2017

Pramod D. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod D. 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

P.a.Joshy Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Balagopal Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Thanzeel T.S. Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Hashim Thangal @ Saidu Muhammed Hashim Thangal Vs State of Kerala