Dismissed

Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2021Bail Appl./5780/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under S. 438 CrPC for offences under the Kerala Abkari Act, the court dismissed the plea because the existence of sufficient materials and the provisions of S. 41A of the Act barred the grant of anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks to the investigating officer followed by production before a Magistrate within S. 57 CrPC period.

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1943

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 5780 OF 2021

¶7

CRIME NO.61 OF 2021 OF KAZHAKUTTOM EXCISE RANGE,

¶8

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶9

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶10

SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 52 YEARS

¶11

S/O.VARIJAKSHAN, T.C.4/443/1, THIRUVONAM, THATTAKUDI LANE, KARIMANAL P.O., KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶13

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

¶16

ADV.SMT.SEENA C- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

B.A.No.5780 of 2021

¶20

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶21

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶22

B.A. No.5780 of 2021

¶23

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2021

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶26

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No. 61 of 2021 of Kazhakuttom Excise Range Office. The offence alleged is under Sections 8(1), 8(2) & Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077. On 25.05.2021, at about 10.30 p.m, the excise party searched the house bearing T.C.No.3/880 (1) situated in the northern side of Attipra - Kottoor Thalavarambu road. They found the accused dealing with the contraband which are 25 litres of arrack and 300 litres of wash. Apart from the said articles, utensils used for the purpose of distillation of arrack was also found inside the house. On seeing the excise officials, the petitioner and the 2^nd accused who were present there, ran away and escaped.

¶27

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

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor placed on record a report of Excise Inspector, Kazhakuttom Excise Range Office.

¶29

¶30

B.A.No.5780 of 2021

¶31

Petitioner contends that he has no criminal antecedents

¶32

and the excise officials falsely implicated him in this case. He has no connection whatsoever with the building from where the contraband articles were found and seized. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation in whatever way this Court directs.

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand would contend that there are enough materials to establish the connection of the petitioner and his brother with the building from where the articles were seized. In the seizure mahazar itself, a statement of the owner of the building who is said to be a cousin sister of the accused to the effect that both the keys of the building were with the accused person, finds a place. The learned Public Prosecutor also would contend that this is a case where a bar under Section 41A of the Abkari Act applies.

¶34

On considering the available records, it would indicate that the petitioner had every connection with the place from where the articles were found and seized. In the occurrence report itself, name of the petitioner has been stated. The definite case of the investigating agency is that the patrolling party could identify the petitioner then and there. In view of the said facts, I am of the

¶35

¶36

B.A.No.5780 of 2021

¶37

view that the petitioner is not entitled to get an anticipatory bail in view of the provisions of Section 41A of the Abkari Act. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

¶38

The Incident occurred on 25.05.2021. Both the accused are at large even now. Hence there shall be a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his surrendering, the investigating officer, after interrogation and necessary formalities of investigation, shall produce him before the Jurisdictional Magistrate as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within the period prescribed in Section 57 the Code.

¶39

Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶40

Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Kumar 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

Harshakumar Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar K.G, Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sajil P.D. Vs State of Kerala

Gasil K.G. Vs State of Kerala