Dismissed

Joy P.V. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2020Bail Appl./3683/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed pre-arrest bail application under Sections 8(1)&(2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act. Ruled that Section 41A embargo prevents pre-arrest bail. Ruled that anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Supreme Court precedent in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks; liberty to apply for regular bail before jurisdictional court.

Joy P.V. Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2020 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3683 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.29/2020 OF Angamaly Excise Range Office , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JOY P.V. AGED 58 YEARS ERNAKULAM PIN-683577 683577

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031 682031

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.AMJAD ALI SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.3683 OF 2020 2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 3rd day of July 2020

¶18

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.29/2020 of Angamaly Excise Range for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 8(1) & (2) and 55 (g) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution case in brief is that on patrol duty the excise officials got information that illicit distillation taking place in the property belonging to the petitioner. They seized 12 litres of arrack and 35 litres of wash and utensils from a shed situated in

¶19

the plot owned by petitioner near the St.Peters Bus Stop at Edalakattu. The articles were seized and the crime was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner states that he is innocent he is residing 10 km away from the plot and that the plot is kept under lock in key and that he seldom goes there particularly because of pandemic situation he was not able to go there and it is possible that someone else have planted the contraband articles there and he is totally dissociates himself with the seized contraband article and therefore he seeks a pre-arrest bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Bail Appl..No.3683 OF 2020 3

¶22

In view of the specific embargo under Section 41A and the presumption under Section 64 of the Abkari Act, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to a pre-arrest bail, considering the quantity of liquor involved and the fact that the property belonging to the petitioner. He will have to adduce the rebuttal evidence to show that he was not involved in the alleged offence. So that he would have to face the trial. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala [2001 KHC 411] an application for anticipatory bail under the Abkari Act cannot be entertained. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks and after interrogation in case he being arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court. He will be at liberty to apply for a regular bail before the jurisdictional court, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of on the very same date

¶23

With these observations, the B.A is dismissed.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

Joy P.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy P.V. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujeeb Vs State of Kerala

Sunny Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Abhuthahir Tv Vs Public Prosecutor

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Yesodharan Vs State of Kerala

Ajas Siby Vs State of Kerala