Allowed

Babu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2018Bail Appl./3978/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the applicant accused under the Abkari Act, finding a prima facie case based on weak evidence linking him to the crime and viewing the prosecution's theory as surmises.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with a bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions to cooperate with investigation and refrain from similar offences.

Babu Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 19TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3978 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 48/2018 OF PONNANI EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

BABU S/O.GOVINDAN, KAPPOOR PARAMBIL HOUSE,THYKKAD, VATTAMKUKALAM,PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

SRI AJITH MURALI PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No. 3978 of 2018

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

The applicant herein is arrayed as the accused in Crime No.48 of 2018 registered at the Ponnani Excise Range under Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act.

¶19

According to the prosecution on 27.4.2018, while on a search mission in and around the Kanarakunnu colony, the Excise Officers attached to the Ponnani Excise Range had occasion to witness a person carrying a sack. His mannerisms, on seeing the excise personnel, aroused suspicion in their minds. When the excise personnel targeted their attention on him, he ditched the sack held by him and made good his escape. The sack was inspected and it was found that it contained 10 litres of arrack. Some inquiries were made at the spot and an individual is alleged to have informed the excise officers that the person, who fled from the spot, is none other than the applicant. On receipt of the information, they proceeded to the house of the applicant. They were told that the marriage of the sister of the applicant is scheduled to be held tomorrow and he had gone for some

¶20

Bail Appl..No. 3978 of 2018

¶21

¶22

errands. Based on the information given by the local, a crime was registered against the applicant.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that it is on surmises and conjectures that the applicant was roped in as an accused in a very grave crime. The learned counsel would refer to Annexure-I invitation letter, Annexure-II photographs and the statement of the Investigating Officer and it was contended that the marriage of the sister of the applicant was scheduled on 28.4.2018 and to expect the applicant to engage in the sale of illicit arrack on the previous day is clearly far fetched. According to the learned counsel, the seizure was made from a canal in a public place situated about 2 kms away from the residential home of the applicant and it was without verifying the authenticity of the information given by the so-called eye witness, the applicant was roped in.

¶24

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the case diary which was made available.

¶25

Records reveal that the crime was registered on 27.4.2018.

¶26

Bail Appl..No. 3978 of 2018

¶27

¶28

The only material in the case diary which links the applicant with the crime is the statement of a person who is alleged to have stated that it was the applicant herein who had fled the spot after leaving the bag. After going through the case diary, I am of the considered view that

¶29

the applicant has made out a prima facie case for an order under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶30

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from 15.10.2018 and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he 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. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶31

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

Bail Appl..No. 3978 of 2018

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation,

¶38

if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

IAP

Babu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu 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

Georgekutty John Vs State of Kerala

Hemamalini Vs State of Kerala

N.Dharmaraj Vs State of Kerala

Balachandran C. Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

P.D. Devassia Vs State of Kerala