JYOTHISH v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P BHAVADASAN
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and going through the records made available before this court, it is seen the petitioner has been in custody since 9.8.2012 and the investigation must have progressed to a…
Judgment
BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH.V.S. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- BA No.6630 of 2012-C ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September 2012 Order This is an application filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC., by the accused in Crime No.551/12 of Vallikkunnam Police Station, for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 9.8.2012 at 2.30 am, the accused was found in possession of 10 litres of illicit spirit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above allegations are totally false and cooked up only for the purpose of the case. The petitioner was arrested on 9.8.2012 and since then, he has been in judicial custody. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, a good part of the investigation must have been completed and the continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary. So, he prays for grant of bail.
The learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the application and pointed out that a large quanity of BA 6630/12 2 contraband goods has been seized and so, the matter may not be viewed lightly. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the investigation is only at an infant stage and if bail is granted to the petitioner, it will hamper the investigation. He, therefore, prays that bail may not be granted to the petitioner.
After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and going through the records made available before this court, it is seen the petitioner has been in custody since 9.8.2012 and the investigation must have progressed to a good extent. So, it is felt that the continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary. Moreover, there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that bail can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions :
The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM Kayamkulam. BA 6630/12 3
2. The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, before granting bail to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday between 10 am and 11 am , till final report is filed.
The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.
If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law. P.Bhavadasan, Judge BA 6630/12 4
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.