Dismissed

Ashokan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Sept 2021Bail Appl./5443/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC for an accused charged with illicit distillation and possession of arrack. The applicant alleged he was in quarantine during the incident. The court held these did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The bail application stands dismissed; the applicant must surrender and cooperate with the investigation.

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 5443 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.29/2021 OF Mamala Excise Range Office, Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-

¶8

ASHOKAN AGED 44 YEARS S/O.KUNJU KOCHU, AALAVELIYIL HOUSE, MAAMALAKANDAM P.O., KOLLAPPARA KARA, KUTTAMPUZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. PEEYUS A.KOTTAM HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE :-

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031.

¶12

2 EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KUTTAMPUZHA (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.29/2021 OF KUTTAMBUZHA EXCISE RANGE), PIN - 686 681.

¶13

SRI.MANU P.G., SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

BAIL APPL. NO. 5443 OF 2021

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Application for pre-arrest bail.

¶19

The petitioner is arraigned as the sole

¶20

accused in Crime No.29 of 2021 of Kuttampuzha Excise Range, Ernakulam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(1), (2) & 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 07.07.2021 at about 3.30 pm the petitioner was found in possession of 39 litres of arrack, 200 litres of

¶22

Wash and utensils kept for distillation of illicit arrack at a place near his residential house, by the

¶23

Excise officials. While seeing the Excise Officials, he ran away from the place and thereby the Excise team seized the article. On enquiry, it is clearly revealed that this petitioner has fled away from the spot and the team could not apprehend him with the contraband

¶24

and utensils. Thus the crime has been registered against him.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 5443 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he was affected with Covid-19 on

¶30

21.06.2021 and so he was under quarantine till 08.07.2021. Therefore, there was absolutely no chance

¶31

for him to commit such an offence. But he apprehends arrest and hence this application.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that it is true that the

¶33

petitioner was not apprehended then and there, as he fled away from the place of occurrence. But the investigation team collected the details about this petitioner, who fled away from the spot, from the

¶34

other person, who was found at the spot. Thus the

¶35

crime has been registered against him. Hence the application is vehemently opposed.

¶36

utensils were not recovered from the residential house of the petitioner. But on hearing the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶37

well the learned Public Prosecutor, I am fully

¶38

convinced that the contraband was seized from the

¶39

¶40

BAIL APPL. NO. 5443 OF 2021

¶41

possession of this petitioner by the Excise officials. But they could not apprehend him then and there, as he fled away from the spot. No doubt, the allegations levelled against him are very serious in nature.

¶42

Having regard to the nature of accusation

¶43

levelled against the petitioner as well other facts and circumstances involved in this case, I do not think that this is a fit and appropriate case in which the discretion of the court can be exercised as prayed for. Only in exceptional cases the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be exercised and that too in a very judicious manner. This is not a case coming under the said category. Hence, he is not entitled to get prearrest bail as prayed for.

¶44

Accordingly, this bail application stands

¶45

dismissed. The petitioner could very well surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

¶48

SMA

Ashokan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashokan 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

Jithoos Vs State of Kerala

Ahmed Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Maharoof Vs State of Kerala

Nazim N., Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

T.J.Yohannan, Vs the State of Kerala