Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUMAR,@ KALLA KUMAR, S/O.KESAVA KURUP versus STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KUMAR,@ KALLA KUMAR, S/O.KESAVA KURUP v. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS - Bail Appl No. 3737 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10991 (22 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3737 of 2007()

1. KUMAR,@ KALLA KUMAR, S/O.KESAVA KURUP,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SMT.P.A.ANITHA

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :22/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

B.A.No.3737 of 2007

Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2007

ORDER

Application for regular bail. The petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 1 litre of arrack and 62 grams of ganja (small quantity) on 26.05.2007. He was arrested and continues in custody from that date.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner may now be enlarged on bail, he having already spent a period of about one month in prison, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposes the application. The offence alleged against the accused under the N.D.P.S Act is of course bailable, but the offence under the Abkari Act is one to which Section 41 A of the said Act applies. The petitioner is accused in as many as 7 other cases, all registered under the Abkari Act and the N.D.P.S Act. In these circumstances, it is prayed that bail may not be granted to the petitioner at this early stage.

4. In the wake of the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor , bail can be granted to the petitioner only if this Court is in a position to entertain both satisfactions contemplated under Section 41 A of the Kerala Abkari Act. In the light of the antecedents B.A.No.3737 of 2007 2 of the petitioner, which have been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Public Prosecutor, and which allegation is not controverted, I am not satisfied that either of the two satisfactions can be entertained now. I find merit in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the Investigator deserves to be given further time to complete the investigation before the question of release of the petitioner is considered.

5. In the result, the application is, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation, not at any rate, prior to 06.07.2007.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


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.