Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ramesh vs the State of Kerala

Ramesh vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 25, 2023
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1356733

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./3187/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....and there is no reason or justification for his further detention.6. the learned public prosecutor would submit thatconsidering the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of interfering with the investigation by the petitioner in the event of his release on bail, this petition deserve only to be dismissed.7. having heard the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner and the learned public prosecutor, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, further detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. i am therefore of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. in the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate, subject to the following conditions:(i) he shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;(ii) he shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and(iii) during the bail period, he shall not getinvolved in any offence. in case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court. sd/- p.g. ajithkumar, judge dk appendix of bail appl. 3187/2023 petitioner annexures annexure a1 a true copy of the remand report dated 13/04/2023

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1945 CRIME NO.48 OF 2023 OF KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE, KASARGODE DISTRICT. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: RAMESH, AGED 37 YEARS S/O JETHI, PULLIGATHIL HOUSE, MANGALPADY VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARGODE-627 126. BY ADVS. UMMUL FIDA C.IJLAL R.UDAYA KUMAR RESPONDENT/STATE: THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY SMT. SEETHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

------------------------------- B.A.No.3187 of 2023 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of April, 2023

ORDER

This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.48 of 2023 of Kumbla Excise Range, Kasargode District. He allegedly had committed the offences punishable under Sections 55(i) and 58 of the Abkari Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner was

found in possession of 23.4 litres of beer permissible to be sold in the state of Karnataka only at 06.05 PM on 13.04.2023 at the public road near his house at Pulligathi Desom .

5. The petitioner would contend that he did not involve

in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, he has been implicated in the crime. He is innocent. The investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably and there is no reason or justification for his further detention.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that

considering the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of interfering with the investigation by the petitioner in the event of his release on bail, this petition deserve only to be dismissed.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, further detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get

involved in any offence. In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court. Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE DK APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3187/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 13/04/2023

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial