Dismissed

Prem Nazeer M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2018Bail Appl./6783/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a second application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, relying on precedent that such applications require a change in circumstances since the earlier rejection, which the applicant failed to demonstrate.

What did the court decide?

The second application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C was dismissed, with no conditions imposed.

Prem Nazeer M. Vs 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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6783 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 60/2017 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

PREM NAZEER M. AGED 43 YEARS,S/O MUHAMMED IBRAHIM,MANCHIRA HOUSE,CHITTUR PO,PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. JOHNSON VARIKKAPPALLIL

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

SMT.MAYA.M.N.-PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No. 6783 of 2018

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C

¶18

The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.60/2017 of the Puthunagaram Police Station under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966.

¶19

The prosecution case is as follows:- On 11.01.2017, the Special Squad of the District Collector, Palakkad, conducted inspection of an unnumbered building at the side of KoduvayoorPallavoor road. It was then found that 30 sacks of wheat and 354 sacks of rice were kept in the building. There were three vehicles, bearing registration numbers KL-48/B-8682,KL-09/F-6917 and KL-09/B-4689 parked inside the compound of the building. The vehicle KL-09/B-4689 was found loaded with 20 sacks of wheat, 25 sacks of boiled rice and 75 sacks of raw rice. The other vehicles also contained gunny bags of raw rice. The gunny bags containing the wheat and rice had the emblem of Food Corporation of India. The seized articles were entrusted to the Taluk Supply Officer, Chittur. During the enquiry conducted by the

¶20

Bail Appl..No. 6783 of 2018

¶21

¶22

Taluk Supply Officer, it was revealed that the building in which the rice and wheat were kept is one taken on rent by the petitioner from one Prabhakaran. It was also revealed during the enquiry that it was as per the direction of the petitioner that the rice and wheat are loaded in the vehicles. On the basis of a complaint given by the Taluk Supply Officer, Chittur, which contained the aforesaid facts, Crime No.60/17 of the Puthunagaram Police Station was registered against the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner had unauthorisedly kept the ration articles in the building and in the vehicles.

¶23

The earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner as B.A No.2542/18 was dismissed by this Court on 08.06.2018. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court for the same relief on 03.10.2018.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

While dismissing the earlier application filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail, this Court had observed as follows:

¶26

“Large quantity of wheat and rice has been seized from the building which was allegedly in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has no case that he has got

¶27

Bail Appl..No. 6783 of 2018

¶28

¶29

any licence or permit or other records to keep the wheat and the rice or to transport it. The complaint given by the Taluk Supply Officer reveals that the petitioner had collected the rice and wheat from may persons. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary to find out the source of the wheat and the rice unauthorisedly kept by him. Considering these aspects and considering the fact that large quantity of wheat and rice, which are ration materials, has been seized from the building allegedly in the possession of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him the benefit of pre-arrest bail.”

¶30

There is no change in the circumstances of the case as mentioned above. The petitioner has produced copies of the registration certificates of two vehicles, which were allegedly involved in the incident. On the basis of those registration certificate, it cannot be found that he was not involved in the offences alleged against him.

¶31

Relying upon the precedents on the point, in Pandi v. State of Kerala : 2018 (4) KLT 249, this Court has held that a second application for anticipatory bail is maintainable only when there is a change in the circumstances of the fact situation of the case. In the instant case, no change of circumstance is pleaded by the petitioner with regard to the facts of the case. In the absence of any change in the fact situation of the case, the

¶32

Bail Appl..No. 6783 of 2018

¶33

¶34

application is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

In the result, the application is dismissed.

¶36

SD/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

lsn

Prem Nazeer M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Nazeer M. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadeeja, Vs Abdul Nazer

E.M. Abraham Vs Claramma

Devassy Vs Mani

Jiji Chacko, Vs State of Kerala

Rony Vs State of Kerala

Jahamgeer. M Vs State of Kerala