Allowed

Chandrahasa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2017Bail Appl./70/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of the accused charged under section 58 of the Abkari Act for possessing Indian made foreign liquor meant for Karnataka. Despite a previous rejection and prior convictions, the Court granted bail on strict conditions with a financial bond and reporting requirements.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on an executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- with two solvent sureties, reporting to the investigating officer.

Chandrahasa 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

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/20TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 70 of 2017

¶6

----------------------------CMP 1810/2016 of J.M.F.C-I, KASARAGOD DATED 21-12-2016 CRIME NO. 156/2016 OF KUMBALA EXCISE RANGE , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED.:

¶8

CHANDRAHASA AGED 42 YEARS, S/O KRISHNA VELICHAPPADAN, PACHAMBALLAM, KUBANNUR VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT.:

¶11

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

¶12

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1001-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

A.M.BABU, J.

¶15

- - - - B.A.70 of 2017

¶16

- - - - Dated : 10^th January, 2017

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1.Petitioner is the accused in crime no.156/2016 of the Kumbla excise range in Kasargod district. He is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 58 of the Abkari Act. He seeks bail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶20

2.The prosecution case is that the petitioner was caught red-handed at 6.50 p.m on 16.12.2016 with 2.16 litres of Indian made foreign liquor. It is alleged that he possessed 12 bottles of liquor, each bottle containing 180 ml. Yet another allegation is that the liquor possessed by the petitioner was meant for sale in the State of Karnataka only.

¶21

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

¶22

BA.70/17

¶23

¶24

4.I dismissed B.A.9120/2016 filed by the very same petitioner. After considering the relevant matters it was found that he was not entitled to bail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C at that time.

¶25

5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the present application as well. As I have stated in my order in B.A.9120/2016, there are very serious allegations against the petitioner. It is alleged that he possessed, without lawful authority, liquor on 16.12.2016. He is in custody since then. He is alleged to have possessed liquor meant for sale in the State of Karnataka only. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has been convicted in an abkari case in 2011. It is also submitted that he is an accused in two other abkari cases. I have to keep in mind these submissions while disposing of this application.

¶26

BA.70/17

¶27

¶28

6.The investigation of the case is completed. What remains is the filing of the final report. The petitioner is in custody since 16.12.2016. His continued custody does not appear to be necessary. He can be granted bail, but on strict conditions.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. The petitioner shall report to the investigating officer on every Monday between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m for a period of three months, whether or not the final report is filed in the meantime. He shall not intimidate witnesses or try to influence them. He shall not destroy evidence or tamper with it. He shall not involve in any abkari offence while he is on bail. The learned Magistrate/Sessions Judge is hereby empowered to cancel the bail

¶30

BA.70/17

¶31

¶32

in the event of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU Judge

Mrcs/10.1.17

//True copy//

P.S to Judge

Chandrahasa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrahasa 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

K.M.Jalaludeen Vs State of Kerala

Jaseel Vs State of Kerala

Jereesh Vs State of Kerala

Naga @ Nagamma Vs State of Kerala

Jose C.T Vs State of Kerala

Rahila Beevi Vs State of Kerala