BAIL APPL No. 2457 of 2007 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU TUESDAY, THE 24TH APRIL 2007 / 4TH VAISAKHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 2457 of 2007() ----------------------------- : PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- VIJAYAMOHANAN NAIR, SOMYA NIVAS, CHUNAKKARA EAST, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------- 1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, MAVELIKKARA.
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SHRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.R. UDAYABHANU, J.--------------------------------B.A.NO. 2457 OF 2007--------------------------------DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2007ORDERThis is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the second accused in O.R. No.93/2004 of Mavelikkara Excise Range. The offences alleged areunder Sections 8 (1), 8(2) and 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 2. It is submitted that final report has already been filed. Petitioner has produced a copy of the same. On hearing bothsides, I am of the view that the petitioner is to be granted theorder sought for.
In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to appearbefore the Court below within 15 days from today onwards andapply for bail. The Court below shall dispose of the sameapplication on the same date itself as far as possible. No pre-trialdetention is required as the final report has been filed. K.R.UDAYABHANU.jg JUDGE.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 24 Apr 2007. The bench was K R UDAYABHANU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.