Quashed

Renjith K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2021Bail Appl./6268/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed bail application under Section 438 CrPC and directed surrender within two weeks. Court held that small quantity of liquor involved and lack of antecedents mean rigour of Section 41A Abkari Act will not prevent bail.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and execute bail bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties on specified conditions.

Renjith K. Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 6268 OF 2021

¶4

(CRIME NO.128 OF 2020 OF KAYAMKULAM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,

ALAPPUZHA)

PETITIONER:

RENJITH K.

AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. MADANAN, PARAKYAPPILLIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV M.R.SASITH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031. SMT SEENA C- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

B.A.No.6268 of 2021

¶15

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶16

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

¶17

B.A.No. 6268 of 2021

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2021

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

¶22

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶23

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.128 of 2020 of Kayamkulam Excise Range Office, Alappuzha, for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

¶24

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 15.10.2020 while the Excise Party was on patrol duty and reached near Yuvanagar Junction in Kayamkulam-Karthikappally road, they saw the accused selling Indian made foreign liquor.

¶25

He was in possession of 800 ml. of rum in a bottle and a glass. On seeing the patrolling party, he ran away.

¶26

The petitioner would contend that he was mistakenly arraigned as an accused and that is how despite the lapse of about an year, he was not arrested and

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.6268 of 2021

¶29

investigation is not completed.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that

¶31

the members of the patrolling party could well identify the petitioner as the person selling the liquor and as he has been indulging in the sale of liquor, he is not entitled to get bail, although the quantity of the liquor involved is less. The learned public Prosecutor also submits that the petitioner did not involve in any other similar crime.

¶32

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that possession of Indian made foreign liquor of such a quantity is permissible and in the absence of sufficient materials to show that he was selling liquor, an offence under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act may not be attracted.

¶33

The contraband was Indian made foreign liquor.

¶34

The total quantity of the liquor in the possession of the petitioner was 800 ml. contained in a bottle. The truth or falsity of the said contention cannot be considered at this stage. In view of the fact that the quantity involved is less and there is no criminal antecedents to the petitioner, I am of the

¶35

¶36

B.A.No.6268 of 2021

¶37

view that the rigour under Section 41A of the Abkari Act does not stand in the way of granting bail to the petitioner.

¶38

In the circumstances, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks from today. After interrogation and other formalities and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for

¶39

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶40

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶41

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer on every Monday and Friday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon for a period of two months or till filing of the final report is filed, whichever is earlier; and

¶42

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

¶43

¶44

B.A.No.6268 of 2021

¶45

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶46

SD/-

¶47

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶48

dkr

Renjith K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjith K. 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

Abdul Saleem Vs State of Kerala

Afzal, Vs State of Kerala

Sudhir K. Vs State of Kerala

Jayarajan Theniyadan, Vs State of Kerala

Moideenkutty A.P. Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Sohib Vs State of Kerala