Dismissed

Vinu .T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala on 09.12.2021 dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail in a case involving illegal liquor possession under the Kerala Abkari Act, noting the petitioner's prior convictions. The court directed surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; directions to surrender to Investigating Officer within two weeks and produce before Magistrate thereafter.

Vinu .T Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | 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. 7196 OF 2021

¶7

CRIME NO.89 OF 2021 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VINU.T AGED 33 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN. T, KANNANKADAVATH HOUSE, KANNAMVETTIKKAVU POST, CHERUKAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. P.M.RAFIQ

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

ADV.SMT.SEENA C- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

B.A.No.7196 of 2021

¶16

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶17

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

¶18

B.A. No.7196 of 2021

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

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

¶22

The offence alleged against the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.89/2021 of the Excise Range Office, Malappuram is under Section 55(i) and 13 read with 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077.

¶23

The allegations against the petitioner is that on 07.08.2021, at about 3.00 p.m, the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-10AB/4557 being driven by the petitioner along the public road near Vennayoor AUPB School was intercepted by the Excise officials. The accused stopped the vehicle and ran away. On the search, the Excise officials found 30 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor kept concealed in the auto rickshaw.

¶24

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

¶25

Petitioner contends that the case is a foisted one and he did not involve in the alleged incident. There is absolutely no material to show that it was the petitioner who was driving the auto rickshaw.

¶26

¶27

B.A.No.7196 of 2021

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that only on the basis of their doubt only the Excise officials implicated him in the case and there was no opportunity for them to identify the culprit. The learned counsel thereby contends that only because he happened to be the owner of the vehicle, it would be quite unjust to arrest and detain him.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the petitioner has involved in two other similar crimes, details of which are mentioned in the report submitted by the Excise Inspector, Malappuram, a copy of which is placed on record.

¶30

It is seen that the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.22 of 2019 and 21 of 2021 of the same Excise Office. The offences alleged in Crime No.22 of 2019 includes offences punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. In this case, the quantity of the liquor allegedly possessed by the petitioner is 30 litres. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the offence, at the most, can be one punishable under Section 63 of the Abkari Act only, for possession of excess quantity liquor cannot be accepted, in the above circumstances.

¶31

Having considered the fact that the petitioner is not a first offender and the quantity of liquor involved in the case, I hold that this is a case where the bar under Section 41A of the Abkari Act gets

¶32

¶33

B.A.No.7196 of 2021

¶34

attracted. Hence I dismiss the application.

¶35

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today. On his surrendering, the investigating officer, after interrogation and necessary other formalities of the investigation, will produce him before the Jurisdictional Magistrate as early as possible, at any rate, within the time stipulated in Section 57 of the Code.

¶36

Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶37

Vinu .T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinu .T 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