Disposed

Sreedas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2021Bail Appl./113/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Kerala addressed whether apprehension of fresh arrest justified revising anticipatory bail. The court held that the earlier bail remained valid despite changes in the investigating agency and crime number, as no graver offence was added.

What did the court decide?

The applicants are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for fresh bail if needed; otherwise, the earlier bail granted continues.

Sreedas Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.113 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.7/2020 OF Ernakulam Excise Range Office , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 SREEDAS, AGED 49 YEARS, SREENIVAS, MELMURI DESOM, KOPPAM VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679307.

¶9

2 THANKACHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, ASHANILAYAM HOUSE, PATTAMBI DESOM, PATTAMBI VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

3 V.S.SURESH AGED 41 YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,ODANOOR DESOM, PARALI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

4 SHEENA, AGED 34 YEARS, AYYAPANKAVU KOZHITHARA DESOM, PERUMBILAVU VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

5 MANOJ.M., AGED 42 YEARS, MANNAMKUZHI HOUSE, SANKARAMANGALAM DESOM, PATTAMBI VILLAGE,PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

Bail Appl.No.113 OF 2021

¶14

¶15

6 RAMESH.P., AGED 50 YEARS, KULAPPARA THOTTATHIL HOUSE, PATTAMBI DESOM,PATTAMBI VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

7 K.HARIDAS, AGED 51 YEARS, KUNDIL HOUSE, MEZHATHOOR DESOM,THRITHALA VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

BY SRI.T.A.SHAJI(SR) BY ADV. SRI.ATHUL SHAJI

¶18

RESPONDENT/S:

¶19

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. (REPRESENTING THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,EXCISE CRIME BRANCH,ERNAKULAM).

¶20

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, OTTAPLAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM – 679102.

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Bail Appl.No.113 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Dated this the 3rd day of February 2021

¶28

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

¶29

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

The applicants are arraigned as accused 3 to 9

¶31

in Crime No.7/2020 of Excise Crime Branch, Ernakulam.

¶32

It is stated that initially the applicants were implicated as accused in an unknown Crime No.42/2019 of the Excise Range Office, Thrithala and the final report was also filed for offences punishable under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act. Subsequently, on the basis of

¶33

the chemical analysis report, Section 57(a) of the

¶34

Abkari Act was also incorporated and committal

¶35

proceedings were commenced as C.P.No.30/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

¶36

Pattambi. Later, the investigation was handed over to

¶37

the new Agency, namely, Excise Crime Branch, Ernakulam

¶38

from the Excise Range Office, Thrithala and the case is

¶39

¶40

Bail Appl.No.113 OF 2021

¶41

now renumbered as Crime No.7/2020. The applicants therefore apprehend that they will be arrested again. They had already been granted bail under Section 437(1) of the Cr.P.C. by the committal court and enjoying that liberty of bail. But consequent to the refiling of the case, the applicants allegedly received notice from the Excise Crime Branch, and therefore, they apprehend that they will be arrested again.

¶42

subsequently by the investigating agency, they can definitely seek for cancellation of the bail already granted to the applicants and it is for the trial court

¶43

to decide whether the bail already granted be cancelled

¶44

or not. But in the instant case, there is no graver offence included subsequently. The only change of circumstances is that since the further investigation was ordered, the applicants received notice from the present investigating agency since they want to elicit some more facts, and therefore, the bail already to the

¶45

applicants may not be stand cancelled until so decided

¶46

Bail Appl.No.113 OF 2021

¶47

¶48

by the trial court for reasons to be stated. Hence, I find no reason regarding the apprehension of the applicants that they may be arrested again since the investigating agency is changed and the crime number is altered. Therefore, the applicants are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court and in case it is found by the jurisdictional court to grant them fresh bail it is at liberty to do so, otherwise the bail granted earlier shall continue. With these

¶49

observations, the bail application is disposed of.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Sreedas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedas 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

Justin Jose Vs State of Kerala

K G Unnikrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Tom Das H Vs State of Kerala

Shyju Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Raoof Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala