Allowed

Shaji K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 May 2018Bail Appl./1924/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for alleged involvement in an abkari offence. The High Court, noting the applicant's sick condition and lack of direct involvement in the restaurant's operations, granted anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted. Application to appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days and undergo interrogation. Subsequent arrest to be followed by release on bail.

Shaji K. Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 1924 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO. 141/2017 OF PULINKUNNU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶6

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶7

K.SHAJI, S/O.GOPALAN,KIZHAKKEDAM HOUSE,KANNAMKARI MURI, VELIYANADU VILLAGE,KUTTANAD TALUK.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶9

SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAJJU.S.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

MSP

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶16

B.A No. 1924 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR, being Crime No.141 of 2017, registered with Pulikunnu Police Station, for offence punishable under Sections 13 & 55(a)(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. He has been arrayed as the 1^st accused in the said Crime.

¶20

On 10.02.2018 at 12.40 p.m., the Sub Inspector of Police Pulinkunnu Police Station conducted a raid in a restaurant by name “Thrupthi Family restaurant” at Changanassery. Search yielded in the detention of about 26 litres of toddy. One Sreekumar was managing the shop and he was arrested at the spot and a Crime was registered arraying the owner of the restaurant as the 1^st accused and Sreekumar as the 2^nd accused. In the course of investigation, when it was revealed that the applicant was

¶21

B.A No.1924/2018

¶22

¶23

the person who had leased out the premises to 2^nd accused, he was roped in.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant asserts that he is innocent. According to the learned counsel, the wife of the applicant was running a toddy shop earlier in the said premises on rental basis and the said shop was closed in the year 2017 pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court. Thereafter, possession of the restaurant was handed over to Sreekumar on the strength of Annexure-B lease deed. The learned counsel also submits that the applicant, who is a PWD Contractor, has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the running of the business by the 2^nd accused. Referring to Annexure-D medical report, the learned counsel contended that the applicant is a very sick man with chronic renal ailments.

¶25

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well and have gone through the case diary.

¶26

It appears that the owner of the building is one Thomson

¶27

B.A No.1924/2018

¶28

¶29

Thomas and his wife is looking after the affairs. The premises was leased out by the applicant to the 2^nd accused for running Thrupthi Hotel. There are materials in the case diary which shows that the aforesaid Sreekumar was in fact running the restaurant and he has been paying rent to the original owner. Furthermore, Annexure-D medical report shows that the applicant is very sick man. His custodial interrogation in the facts and circumstances does not appear to be necessary for an effective investigation.

¶30

In the result, this applicant will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail by the officer effecting the arrest on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i) He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶32

B.A No.1924/2018

¶33

¶34

ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶35

iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶36

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate

¶37

orders in accordance with the law.

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶39

al/- xx

Shaji K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji K. 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

O.K.Babu @ Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Rahim Vs State of Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Jabir Vs the State of Kerala

Yedukrishnan.G Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Vs the State of Kerala