Dismissed

Sharan @ Sharan.K.Prakash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6863/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court denied pre-arrest bail to a petitioner accused of brewing illicit arrack under the Kerala Abkari Act. The court found the prosecution case reliable, noting the petitioner was caught fleeing and materials were seized. He was directed to surrender for further investigation before regular bail could be considered.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; Applicant directed to surrender to investigating officer forthwith.

Sharan @ Sharan.K.Prakash Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO.6863 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO.5562/2019 DATED 17-09-2019 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶7

CRIME NO.64/2019 OF CHERTHALA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONERS / ACCUSED :

¶9

SHARAN @ SHARAN.K.PRAKASH AGED 26 YEARS KODUVELIL HOUSE, KANNANKARA.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

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

¶12

SRI RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BAIL APPL..NO.6863 OF 2019 2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶17

The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.64 of 2019 of the Cherthala Excise Range registered for the offence under Sections 8(1) and (2) and 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶18

On the basis of source information that the applicant herein was engaged in the brewing of illicit arrack, the Preventive Officer, Excise Range Office, Cherthala proceeded to House No.674 in Ward No.8 of Thanneermukkam Village. The applicant was found inside and on seeing the excise personnel, he is alleged to have made good his escape. About 9 liters of arrack, several plastic bottles, implements of distillation, a gas stove and a cylinder were seized.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he was roped in since his ID card was found inside the building. According to the learned counsel, the place from where the contraband was seized is occupied by his parents and others and in that view of the matter, it could not be said that he was in actual physical possession of the contraband.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He would refer to the case diary and also the details of investigation and it is vehemently submitted that the materials collected clearly link the applicant herein with the crime. It is further submitted that the property belongs to the grandparents of the applicant and he was indulging in the illicit distillation of arrack.

¶21

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. On a meticulous evaluation of the records, I find nothing to doubt

¶22

BAIL APPL..NO.6863 OF 2019 3

¶23

the case of the prosecution. The contention of the learned counsel that the allegations are frivolous and vexatious cannot be accepted. I am therefore not persuaded to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the applicant. However, I find that the contraband articles have already been seized by the officer concerned. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that necessary directions can be issued to the applicant to co-operate with the investigation by surrendering before the investigating officer.

¶24

In the result, I direct the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer forthwith. He shall be interrogated and shall be produced before the court having jurisdiction on the same day itself. If an application for bail is preferred, the court below shall consider all the relevant aspects including the recovery of the articles and shall pass orders on its merits, ideally on the same day itself.

¶25

This application is dismissed.

¶26

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶27

Sharan @ Sharan.K.Prakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharan @ Sharan.K.Prakash 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

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

P.S.Soman Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Shabeeb Irfan N.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ummer.v.a Vs the State of Kerala

Zakkir Vs State of Kerala