Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JINIL, S/O.VARGHESE versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JINIL, S/O.VARGHESE v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 7357 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 3177 (12 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7357 of 2006()

1. JINIL, S/O.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner

2. BIJO ELIAS, S/O.ELIAS,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.M.S.MANIKANDAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :12/12/2006

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bail Application No. 7357 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DATED: 12-12-2006

O R D E R

Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.R. No. 48/06 of Excise Range, Chirayinkeezhu for an offence punishable under Sec. 55(g) of the Abkari Act for allegedly transporting 3399 liters of spirit on 18-10-2006 and who were arrested on the same day, seek their enlargement on bail.

2. It is admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no final report has been filed even after 60 days of detention of the petitioners. If so, the petitioners are entitled to bail as of right under the proviso to Sec. 167 (1) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M -I, Attingal and subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

2. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. Bail A.No. 7357/06 -:2:-

3. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

3. If the petitioners commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled.

4. It has come to the notice of this Court that in several abkari cases involving spirit, no charge is filed within the statutory period of 60 days resulting in the inevitable release of the accused on bail due to the statutory compulsion under the proviso to Sec. 167 (1) Cr.P.C. It is not known whether the failure to file charge-sheet within the statutory period is deliberate or or due to justifiable reasons. This matter has definitely to be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary for appropriate remedial measures, if need be.

5. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretary for information and necessary prophylactic action. This application is allowed as above. Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR,

JUDGE.

ani. Bail A.No. 7357/06 -:3:-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.