Allowed

Pushparaj.R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8602/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 438 CrPC was allowed for the petitioner accused of selling Indian made foreign liquor under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The court found detention during investigation unnecessary despite the alleged role of an excise official, granting bail with conditions to appear frequently and avoiding legal violations.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; directed to surrender within two weeks; released on execution of bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties; appearing twice weekly.

Pushparaj.R Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/ 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8602 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.89 OF 2021 OF MATTANNUR EXCISE RANGE, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

PUSHPARAJ.R., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.RAJAYYAN, PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, PULIKKUTTAVILAI, PEENAMTHODE, KULASEKHARAM, KANYAKUMARI, TAMILNADU STATE.

¶9

BY ADVS. P.V.ANOOP PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR K.V.SREERAJ

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031.

¶13

2 THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICER MATTANNUR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MATTANNUR (PO), KANNUR, PIN 670 702.

¶14

ADV. SEENA C. (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

B.A.No.8602 of 2021

¶18

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶19

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

¶20

B.A.No. 8602 of 2021

¶21

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2021

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner is the accused in crime No.89 of 2021 of Mattannur Excise Range, Kannur. The offence alleged is under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶25

The prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 4.15 p.m. on 23.08.2021, the petitioner was selling Indian made foreign liquor, and on seeing the Excise party approaching him, he fled away after abandoning the bottle. It is further alleged that the person, who was there to purchase the liquor also, had run way after abandoning the liquor. Apart from two bottles containing liquor, Rs.600/- said to be sale proceeds, and a mobile phone were also seized from scene of occurrence.

¶26

¶27

B.A.No.8602 of 2021

¶28

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

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that an excise official, who has been residing near to the petitioner's rented house, has caused to foist this case. The learned counsel would point out that the quantity of the liquor said to have been seized itself is enough to indicate that the case is a foisted one and that the circumstances narrated

¶30

by the investigating agency would only probablise that the case is a created one.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would contend that the petitioner was involved in sale of liquor and his custodial interrogation is required for a proper investigation. She placed on record the report of the Excise Inspector, Mattannur Range as well. The learned Public Prosecutor also submit that the restrictions under Section 41A of the Abkari Act shall stand in the way of granting bail to the petitioner. Although the quantity of the contraband seized was one litre of Indian made foreign liquor only, the contention of

¶32

¶33

B.A.No.8602 of 2021

¶34

the petitioner that the case is a foisted one at the instigation of an excise official, cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶35

However, having considered the fact that there is no allegation of the petitioner has involved in any other abkari offence and the contraband is foreign liquor of a less quantity, I am of the view that the detention, during investigation of the petitioner, is not required. This is not a fit case where the rigour of Section 41A of the Abkari Act need be applied.

¶36

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

¶37

(i) Once released on bail, he shall appear before Mattannur Excise Range on every Tuesday and Friday for a period of two months or till the final report is

¶38

¶39

B.A.No.8602 of 2021

¶40

filed, whichever is earlier;

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall

¶44

be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶47

dkr

Pushparaj.R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushparaj.R 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

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Thomas @ Cijo Vs State of Kerala

Vinu .T Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash a. Vs State of Kerala

Jaffer Vs the State of Kerala

Mujeeb Puthenparambil, Vs State of Kerala