Allowed

Sugathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jan 2018Bail Appl./195/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for the accused alleged of selling IMFL. Issues regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation were reviewed before granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation, payment of bond, and compliance with investigation directions.

Sugathan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 9TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 195 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.29/2018 OF POTHANIKADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL.

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

SUGATHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAN, CHALIL HOUSE, MAVUMTHOTTY BHAGOM, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, POTHANIKAD, ERNAKULAM RURAL.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHANIKAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶16

B.A.No.195 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.29 of 2018 of the Pothanikad Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act.

¶21

3.Prosecution allegation is that on 5.1.2018, based on a tip off that the petitioner was engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in the rubber plantation near to Njarakkad Junction, the police party reached the spot. The petitioner was allegedly found selling IMFL and on seeing the police personnel he is alleged to have taken to his heels. About 3.750 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was allegedly seized from the scene of crime.

¶22

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted with much vehemence that the petitioner had nothing to do with

¶23

B.A.No.195 of 2018 2

¶24

the sale of IMFL. He was not even there at the scene of crime. He is aged 52 years and a person with no criminal antecedents. If he is arrested and detained, he would be subjected to humiliation and ignominy is the submission.

¶25

5.Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the investigation revealed that the petitioner was dispensing IMFL. His presence at the scene of crime was also spoken to by the neighbours. However, it is submitted that he is not a person with criminal antecedents.

¶26

6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. The alcohol found at the scene of crime has been seized and the prosecution do not have a case that the Indian Made Foreign Liquor which was seized is illicit or that it was not meant for sale in the State of Kerala.

¶27

7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the petitioner, the quantity of alcohol seized and attendant facts, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessitous for an effective investigation.

¶28

8.In the result, this petition is allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶29

B.A.No.195 of 2018 3

¶30

i).The petitioner 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 on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶31

ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶32

iii)The petitioner 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.

¶33

iv)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶34

v) If he surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶35

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 orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶37

IAP //True Copy\ P.A to Judge

Sugathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugathan 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

Muhammed Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Saidalavi Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Mohammed Shereef A.P. @ Kuttappi Vs State of Kerala

Kumar Raja Alias C H Raja Vs M/S.Paresh Agro Industries

Shafi K.B. Vs the State of Kerala