Dismissed

Devadas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Mar 2019Bail Appl./1913/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court noted the accused ran away from the scene and prima facie materials connected him to the offence of possession of arrack under the Abkari Act, eschewed the grant of bail. Directing surrender within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail dismissed. Direction to surrender to Investigating Officer within ten days.

Devadas Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1913 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.24/2019 OF Mannarkkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

DEVADAS AGED 39 YEARS S/O AYYAPPAN, KANNAYIL HOUSE, P.O. VAZHIYAMPURAM, KARAKURUSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

SMT.V.SREEJA,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

-2-

¶15

Bail Appl..No. 1913 of 2019

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.24/2019 of Mannarkkad Excise Range registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act on the allegation that on 07.03.2019 at 6.00 p.m., the petitioner

¶18

was found in possession of 1.5 litres of arrack in a scooter bearing registration No.KL-50-G-375, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. The petitioner ran away from the scene on seeing the Police.

¶19

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

It appears that the petitioner ran away from

¶22

the scene of occurrence. The petitioner was identified then and there. The name of the petitioner is figured in

¶23

the occurrence report. It appears that there are

¶24

-3-

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 1913 of 2019

¶26

materials to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. If the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application, there is embargo under Section 41 (A) of the Abkari Act in granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. If that be so, the inhibition will

¶27

be more severe when an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dealt with. Since the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application, I am not inclined to grant the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, particularly when there are materials to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged.

¶28

In the result, this application stands dismissed.

¶29

However the petitioner is directed to surrender

¶30

before the Investigating Officer within ten days.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Nkr/27.03.19

Devadas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devadas 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

Sarath Soman Vs State of Kerala

Ajas.K.H Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Bindu, Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Anil Jacob Vs State of Kerala