Allowed

Mahesh.a v. Excise Range Officer

Kerala HC6 Nov 2017Bail Appl./7144/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused found in possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor under the Abkari Act, granting bail subject to four specific conditions including cooperation with investigation and prohibition from leaving the country.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to execution of bond, appearance before IO on Saturdays, non-tampering with evidence, no new offences, and no foreign travel without permission.

Mahesh.a Vs Excise Range Officer — 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

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/15TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7144 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 94/2017 OF MATTANNUR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , KANNUR.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

MAHESH.A., S/O.SASI, AGED 30 YEARS, THUDIKKATTUKUNNUMEL, CHAVASSERY AMSOM, VELIYAMBRA DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

1. EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, MATTANNUR EXCISE RANGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA.M.N

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶17

B.A. No.7144 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1.This is an application filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

2.The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.94 of 2017 of Mattannur Excise Range registered under section 55(i) of the Abkar Act, 1077.

¶22

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 1.10.2017 at about 12.10 p.m., the petitioner herein was found possessing two bottles of 500ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.

¶23

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he had purchased the Indian Made Foreign Liquor from an authorised retail outlet run by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. According to the learned counsel even if the allegation is accepted as such, an offence under section 55(i) of the Abkari Act will not be attracted. The learned counsel would also submit that nothing else was seized from the possession of the petitioner and the mere fact that he has been roped in

¶24

BA 7144/2017 2

¶25

under Section 55(i) would render the prosecution version suspicious.

¶26

5.The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently oppose the prayer and submit that this is not a fit case where prearrest bail can be granted. However, it is fairly submitted that the petitioner is not a person with previous antecedents of indulging in similar offences.

¶27

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned public prosecutor and have perused the records.

¶28

7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor found in possession of the petitioner, the severity of the punishment and the other facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner can be granted the relief as prayed for.

¶29

8.In the result, this application will stand allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶30

BA 7144/2017

¶31

¶32

1). The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

¶33

2). The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for 2 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶34

3). The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶35

4). The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶36

5). The petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the concerned Court.

¶37

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶38

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶40

vps

Mahesh.a v. Excise Range Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh.a v. Excise Range Officer

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

Salman V.A. Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Harikrishnan A.N Vs State of Kerala

Peter Rosalain Vs State of Kerala

Sajeer Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs State of Kerala