Allowed

Joseph @ Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2018Bail Appl./58/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam allowed bail to the second accused in an abkari offence involving arrack distillation, imposing conditions including sureties, periodic appearance at the investigating officer's office, and restrictions on leaving India or tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to a bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties, appearing before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays, and adhering to restrictions on influencing witnesses, committin

Joseph @ Jose 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

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 21ST POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 58 of 2018

¶6

------------------------CRIME NO. 1288/2017 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 :

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

JOSEPH @ JOSE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM, MADATHUMPADIYIL HOUSE, PEELIMOOLA DESOM, PEELIMOOLA DESOM, PARDIPARAMBU, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.N.U.HARIKRISHNA

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE : ----------------

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682 031, (CRIME NO.1288/2017 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT).

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAJJU S.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶17

B.A.No.58 of 2018

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1.This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

2.The petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.1288 of 2017 of the Mannuthy Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.

¶22

3.Prosecution alleges that the petitioner herein along with 5 others indulged in the distillation of arrack on 10.11.2017 in a vacant piece of land opposite to a cemetery at Chirakkakode. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannuthy. Ten litres of arrack, large quantity of wash and some implements were seized. The petitioner was arrested on 6.12.2017 and he is now in judicial custody.

¶23

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

¶24

4^th accused has already been enlarged on bail by the Court of

¶25

B.A.No.58 of 2018 2

¶26

Session and accused Nos.5 and 6 has been granted pre - arrest bail. It is prayed that having regard to the period of detention undergone, the petitioner may be released on bail.

¶27

5.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a person with prior criminal antecedents.

¶28

6.I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶29

7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of detention undergone, the stage of investigation and other attendant fact and circumstances, it does not appear to me that further detention of the petitioner is warranted.

¶30

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

¶31

1). The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

¶32

2).The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for 2 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶33

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

¶34

B.A.No.58 of 2018 3

¶35

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

¶36

5).The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

¶37

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.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶40

//True Copy\

¶41

P.A to Judge

¶42

IAP

Joseph @ Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph @ Jose 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

Dasan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Gopi Vs Superintendent of Police

Aneesh Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Rinoj Vs State of Kerala

Deepak.M.G Vs State of Kerala

Jithin Vs State of Kerala