High CourtsSingle Bench

Aiju.A.P vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 5 December 2023 · Citation: (2023) 12 KL CK 0040

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Abkari Act, 1 of 1077 — Section 8(1), 8(2)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 10273 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 438 words

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

1.

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.224/2023 of Agali Excise Range Office, Palakkad, for committing offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act.

3.

The allegation against the Road stretches to Mamana Ooru from Mamana junction is situated in Mamana desom at Agali Village in Attappad Tribal Taluk. Mamana temple is situated at the said desom alongside the said road. Electric post bearing No.A/DK-31/12 exists on the left side of the said road, which is opposite the temple. On 10.11.2023 at 7.40 a.m, upon receiving secret information from Excise Intelligence Beauro, Palakkad, Preventive Officer of Excise Range Office, at Agali and party along with party from Excise Intelligence Beauro, Palakkad was conducting patrolling through the said road and reached near said electric post, it was found out that the accused was in illegal possession of 5 litres of Arrack and was illegally transporting the same and thereby, he committed the offences alleged against him.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is totally innocent and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner is in custody from 10.11.2023, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

6.

After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and considering the nature of the offences committed by the petitioner and the quantity and the fact that he has been in custody from 10.11.2023 and since there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if released on bail the petitioner is likely to abscond, I hold that bail can be granted to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed;

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses;

(iv)The petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail;

(v) If any of the conditions are violated, the court concerned will be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law.