Dismissed

S.Satheesan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Sept 2020Bail Appl./4142/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for anticipatory bail in arrack smuggling case dismissed. Court held that statutory embargo and presumption under Abkari Act prevent pre-arrest bail at this stage. Applicant directed to surrender and seek regular bail after investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; applicant directed to surrender within two weeks for regular bail consideration post-interrogation.

S.Satheesan 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

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4142 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1019/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

CRIME NO.767/2020 OF Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

S.SATHEESAN AGED 35 YEARS

¶10

S/O. INDIRABAI AMMA, KARUMOOLAVEEDU, POIKAMUKKU P.O, AVANAVANCHERY, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PANJIYAMMA HOUSE, AVANAVANACHERY, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 103 695103

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.SATHEESH MOHANAN SRI.V.V.PRATHEEKSH KURUP

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031

¶14

PP - SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.4142 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 15th day of September 2020

¶20

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶21

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶22

The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.767/2020 of Attingal Police Station,

¶23

Thiruvananthapuram, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and (2), 55(g) and 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

¶25

01.05.2020 at about 1.15 p.m, the police officers found the applicant and the other co-accused engaged in the illicit distillation of arrack in a house at Mundakkal Village owned by the applicant. On seeing the police party, the applicant ran away and could not be apprehended, all the remaining accused were apprehended.

¶26

The applicant submits that he is innocent

¶27

and the allegations against him are false and that

¶28

Bail Appl..No.4142 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

even though the house is owned by him is not

¶31

occupied and some distance from there. He has been falsely implicated for the reason that the house belongs to him and also he was engaged in the said illicit distillation of arrack. He seeks prearrest bail.

¶32

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

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that 2.1 litres of arrack, distilling equipment and

¶34

some wash were recovered from the house. The

¶35

applicant managed to flee away from there and could not be apprehended. The allegation that a

¶36

false case is foisted against him, is not believable.

¶37

Considering the embargo under Section 41A of the Abkari Act, and also the presumption under Section 63 of the Abkari Act, the pre-arrest bail cannot be entertained at this stage.

¶38

Bail Appl..No.4142 OF 2020

¶39

The applicant is therefore directed to

¶40

surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation, in the event of his arrest, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Court at the earliest, and he shall be at liberty to apply for a regular bail before the said court which shall be considered and

¶41

disposed of preferably on the same date.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

S.Satheesan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Satheesan 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

Nahas Vs State of Kerala

Augustine v.a., Vs State of Kerala

Renjini T.V Vs State of Kerala

Fasal .E. Vs the State of Kerala

Bindu S., Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs Public Prosecutor