Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANIL KUMAR, AGED 32 versus RANGE INSPECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ANIL KUMAR, AGED 32 v. RANGE INSPECTOR - Bail Appl No. 828 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 3082 (12 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 828 of 2007()

1. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 32,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. RANGE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.H.HARIKUMAR (KOLLAM)

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :12/02/2007

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 828 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2007

O R D E R

Petitioner who is the accused in Cr.No.232/06 of Karunagappally Excise Range for offences punishable under sections 55(a) and 67B of the Abkari Act for allegedly procuring 1530 litres of spirit in 51 jerry cans on 7.12.2006, seeks his enlargement on bail.

2. Pursuant to the direction issued by this court while disposing of the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail, he surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 19.1.2007. On production before the Magistrate, he was remanded to judicial custody, where he continues.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

4. The case of the petitioner is that on the day previous to the date of the alleged detection, his mini lorry was stolen and he had lodged a complaint before the Police and within three hours of the complaint, the lorry was detected by the Excise Officials with contraband spirit for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the alleged theft of the lorry is a cock and bull story and that the Police had rightly refused to register a crime and that the petitioner is the person who has procured the contraband spirit. BA.828/07 Page numbers

5. It is too early to accept the petitioner's version at this stage of the investigation.

6. I am not satisfied that both the grounds enumerated under Clause (b)(ii) of Sec.41 A of the Abkari Act are present in this case so as to justify the release of the petitioner on bail. This application is accordingly dismissed.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

dsn


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.