Dismissed

Vintumon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2020Bail Appl./5673/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Vintumon under Section 438 CrPC. The Court held that the embargo under Section 41A CrPC and the presumption under Section 64 of the Abkari Act precluded entertaining the application, directing the applicant to surrender and pursue regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks and apply for regular bail after interrogation.

Vintumon Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 14TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5673 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.99/2020 OF Alappuzha Excise Range Office, Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

VINTUMON AGED 34 YEARS PADINJAREVELI VELI HOUSE, AVALOOKKUNNU P O, ARYAD PANCHAYATH WARD NO.14, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688538

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.KARTHIK S. ACHARYA SRI.C.R.SANISH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶12

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No.5673 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 6th day of October 2020

¶18

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶19

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶20

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime

¶21

No.99/2020 of Alappuzha Excise Range Office,

¶22

Alappuzha, for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 17.08.2020, the Excise Officials on getting

¶24

information reached the house of the applicant and near the bathroom found 16.5 litres of IMFL stored without authority intended for sale.

¶25

The applicant states that the allegations

¶26

are untrue and false and that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of a Coir factory owner

¶27

against whom his wife had allegedly made a complaint. A copy of which is produced at Annexure -I. The complaint was made on the 2nd of March,

¶28

Bail Appl..No.5673 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

2020 and the instance of the Coir factory owner,

¶31

the Excise Officials have foisted this false case against the applicant. The applicant states that

¶32

he is innocent and therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶33

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

¶34

In view of the embargo under Section 41A

¶35

Cr.P.C and the presumption under Section 64 of the Abkari Act and also the decision of the Apex Court

¶36

in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala (SC) [2001 KHC

¶37

411], application for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained.

¶38

The applicant is therefore directed to

¶39

surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and 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

¶40

Bail Appl..No.5673 OF 2020

¶41

the said court which shall be considered on its merits, and disposed of preferably on the same

¶42

date, considering the mitigating circumstances.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Vintumon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vintumon 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Anuroop, Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Kairali Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Cochin International Airport Ltd.

Vipin Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala

Princy John Vs State of Kerala