Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABUTTY @ RAJEEVAN, S/O.BALAN versus THE EXCISE INSPECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BABUTTY @ RAJEEVAN, S/O.BALAN v. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR - Bail Appl No. 1488 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 5286 (13 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1488 of 2007()

1. BABUTTY @ RAJEEVAN, S/O.BALAN,
... Petitioner

2. RAJESH, S/O.DAMODARAN,

Vs

1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent

2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.CIBI THOMAS

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :13/03/2007

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1488 OF 2007 A ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2007

O R D E R

Petitioners were accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.R. No. 3/2007 of Mananthavady Excise Range for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for allegedly carrying 34.9 litres of IMFL in an autorikshaw on 13.2.2007 and who were arrested on the same day, seek their enlargement on bail.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application submitting, inter alia, that the first petitioner, who is the first accused, is an accused in other crimes involving similar offences. If so, I am not satisfied that both the grounds enumerated under sec.41A (b)(ii) of the Abkari Act are present in this case so as to justify the grant of anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. I am, however, inclined to grant bail to the 2nd petitioner, who is the 2nd accused, since he is not shown to be involved in other crimes. Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his 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, Mananthavady and subject to the following conditions: BA.1488/07

a. 2nd Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11

a.m. on all Wednesdays.

b. 2nd petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the police till the filing of the final report.

c. 2nd petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

d. 2nd petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. If the 2nd petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled. In the result, the request of the first petitioner for bail is refused and the second petitioner is granted bail as above. This application is partly allowed as above.

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

aks


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.