Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJAN @ CHINJILAM RAJAN, ARCHANA versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJAN @ CHINJILAM RAJAN, ARCHANA v. THE STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 3794 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11165 (25 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3794 of 2007()

1. RAJAN @ CHINJILAM RAJAN, ARCHANA
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.PREMCHAND

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :25/06/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.Nos. 3794, 3795 & 3796 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 25th day of June, 2007

O R D E R

The common petitioner faces allegations in these three cases all under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to keep in his possession 10 litres, 20 litres and 3 litres of arrack on different dates. The petitioner could not be arrested in those cases. He was arrested in some other case . On the basis of the production warrant issued by the learned Magistrate, he was produced before the court and his arrest was recorded.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. At any rate the petitioner may now be released on bail. it is prayed.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The petitioner is involved in several similar cases. The prosecution is, in these circumstances, obliged to oppose the application. Bail may not be granted to the petitioner, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.Nos. 3794, 3795 & 3796 of 2007 2

4. In the wake of opposition by the Public Prosecutor, bail can be granted to the petitioner only if this court is in a position to entertain both the satisfactions contemplated under Section 41A of the Kerala Abkari Act. I need only say that in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to entertain either of those satisfactions. The prayer for bail must in these circumstances fail.

4. This application is, in these circumstance, dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move the courts for bail again at a later stage of the investigation, not at any rate, prior to 9.7.2007. The Investigators shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. I may further note that if the petitioner is entitled for bail for default on actual computation of the date, this order shall not stand in the way of the petitioner getting bail from the learned Magistrate on that ground. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


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.