Dismissed

Sreebil S v. Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC5 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4464/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC cannot be entertained for offences under the Abkari Act due to the specific embargo under Section 41A of that Act. The court directed petitioners to surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Applications for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioners directed to surrender before investigating officer within two weeks.

Sreebil S Vs Public Prosecutor — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4463 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.525/2020 OF Cherpu Police Station , Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

MIDHUN KRISHNA AGED 29 YEARS S/O MADHANASUNDHARAN, NADUVILA VALLAPPIL HOUSE, PARALAM P O, VENGINISSERRY, THRISSUR- 680 575. 680575

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.V.J.RUBY

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682031

¶12

2 S.I. OF POLICE CHERUPU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.AMJAD ALI SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4464/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..NoS.4463 & 4464 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶22

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶23

Bail Appl..No.4464 OF 2020

¶24

CRIME NO.525/2020 OF Cherpu Police Station , Thrissur

¶25

PETITIONER/S:

¶26

1 SREEBIL S AGED 28 YEARS S/O SREENIVASAN, MULLANPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODANNUR PO, PALLIPURAM, THRISSUR 680563

¶27

2 MANU, S/O MANI,AGED 28 YEARS VETTIYATTIL HOUSE, AMMADAM, THRISSUR PIN 680563

¶28

3 SHEMIL P S AGED 29 YEARS S/O SREENIVASAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, PALAKKAL, THRISSUR PIN 680027

¶29

4 JISHNU, S/O GOPINADHAN, AGED 25 YEARS, PAYAPATT HOUSE, PARALAM P.O., VENGINISSERY, THRISSUR, PIN 680563

¶30

BY ADVS. SMT.V.J.RUBY RUBY V J

¶31

RESPONDENT/S:

¶32

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶33

OTHER PRESENT:

¶34

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶35

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4463/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

¶37

Bail Appl..NoS.4463 & 4464 OF 2020

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

[ Bail Appl..4463/2020, Bail Appl..4464/2020 ] Dated this the 5th day of August 2020

¶40

Applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶41

The applicant in B.A.No.4463/2020 is the 3^rd accused while the applicants in B.A No.4464/2020 are accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 in Crime No.525/2020 of Cherpu Police Station for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.

¶42

The prosecution case in brief is thus:- On 30.04.2020 on getting discreet information regarding possession and manufacture of illicit arrack by the accused persons, the police officers on duty conducted a search of the house of the 1^st accused, which he had allegedly taken on lease, and recovered 9 litres of arrack from that house. The 2^nd accused was arrested from the spot. The others could not be apprehended. The fact regarding leasing of the property to the 1^st accused is also denied as there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the property was leased to the 1^st accused. The applicants therefore seek anticipatory bail from this Court stating that they are innocent and they have absolutely no involvement in the alleged crime.

¶43

¶44

Bail Appl..NoS.4463 & 4464 OF 2020

¶45

The allegations raised by the applicants regarding the validity of lease and the possession of the property by the accused are not matters which can be considered at this point in time, and a prolix discussion on merits in a bail application is not possible.

¶46

In view of the specific embargo under Section 41A of the Abkari Act and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala [2001 KHC 411] an application for anticipatory bail under the Abkari Act cannot be entertained. Hence, applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of their being arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court before which they are at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of by the jurisdictional court on the very same day.

¶47

With these observations, the bail applications are disposed

of.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

Sreebil S v. Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreebil S v. Public Prosecutor

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

Aneesh Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Nishanth Vs State of Kerala

Nowfal Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Kumar Vs Public Prosecutor

Ullas Sebastian Vs State Ofkerala

Midhun Krishna Vs State of Kerala