Dismissed

Sajikumar S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2020Bail Appl./7246/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by toddy shop licensees accused of spirit adulteration. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the truth in the well-organized offence and denied pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Applicants directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks.

Sajikumar S Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.7246 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.132/2020 OF Kayamkulam Excise Range Office , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 SAJIKUMAR S AGED 46 YEARS SON OF SHIVARAMAN, MANGATTETHU, CHOONADU, VALLIMUNNAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.,ALAPPUZHA PIN-690101

¶9

2 N. PRAKASH AGED 49 YEARS SON OF NEELAKANDAN, KAIPALLI PADEETETHIL, PATHIYOOR PANCHAYATH, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN -690106

¶10

3 K.D. PRAKASHAN AGED 51 YEARS SON OF DIVAKARAN, KANDATHIL, KANNANKARA P.O., THANNEERMUKKAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN -688527

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.E.C.BINEESH -PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 7246/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 17th day of December 2020 Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶22

The applicants are accused Nos.4 to 6 in Crime No.132/2020 of

¶23

Excise Range, Kayamkulam for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 55(a), 55D, 57(a), 58 & 67-B of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the receipt of a secret Information from the Alappuzha Excise Intelligence Bureau, on 20.10.2020 at about 12.10 p.m., the Excise Circle Inspector of Haripad Excise Range and his party on patrol duty saw a pickup van and a white Creta Car parked on a pocket road near Pullukulangara Temple. They reached near the van and saw a person entering the pickup van and pouring some liquid into the barrels loaded in the van. They realised that the pickup van contained barrels of toddy meant for distribution to different toddy shops in that area, and it was being mixed with spirit. Three litres of spirit was seized and accused 1 and

¶25

BA 7246/2020

¶26

¶27

3 were arrested from the spot. But A2 managed to flee. The applicants are implicated as accused on the premise that they are the licensees of different toddy shops of Kayamkulam Range to which the adulterated toddy was intended to be supplied as instructed by them. The applicants hold licences to toddy shops being toddy workers who were granted licences to conduct the toddy shops because there were no other auctioneers to bid for those shops. And, therefore, they do not have anything to do with the alleged adulteration of spirit with the toddy meant to be delivered to their shops.

¶28

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

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the toddy was being brought to the shops of the applicants from Palakkad and on the way to their shops, as per the directions of the applicants, the spirit was being mixed with the toddy, and therefore, it was with consent and knowledge of the applicants and other toddy shop owners that the adulteration was being made. Accused 1 and 3 were arrested from the spot. Only if the applicants are apprehended and

¶30

BA 7246/2020

¶31

¶32

subjected to custodial interrogation, details regarding the manner in which the said adulteration takes place would be unravelled. Hence, the learned Prosecutor submits that the application for anticipatory bail may not be entertained.

¶33

Under the circumstances, I find that the applicants will have to be subjected to interrogation to unravel the truth in this wellorganized offence. The investigating officer will have to be given an opportunity to interrogate and question the applicants and therefore, they are definitely not entitled to an exceptional remedy of anticipatory bail in this case.

¶34

In view of the embargo under Section 41A of the Abkari Act, and the decision of the Apex Court in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala [2001 KHC 411] also, the applicants are not entitled to a pre-arrest bail. The application is only to be dismissed.

¶35

The applicants are, therefore, directed to surrender before

¶36

the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, after interrogation, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where they are at liberty to apply for regular bail,

¶37

BA 7246/2020

¶38

¶39

which shall be considered and preferably disposed of by the

¶40

jurisdictional court on the very same day.

¶41

The bail application is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Sajikumar S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajikumar S 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

Sreekanth Vs State of Kerala

Sijo Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sijo Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Daniel @ Roy Vs State of Kerala

Ria Ann Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Abhishek.P Vs State of Kerala