Ranjith Kumar P vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Feb 18, 2021

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1601047

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1601047
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon
Decided On: Feb 18, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./1324/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ranjith Kumar P

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....is that on31.12.2020 at about 22.45 hours, the sub inspector of police and his party while on patrol duty reached a place poothapara, they found the applicant and another were found in possession of 4.5 litres of indian made foreign liquor. the applicant fled away from there and could not be apprehended.4. the applicant states that he is innocent and that he has been implicated solely on the confession statement given by the other accused and it is not admissible in law, and therefore, seeks pre-arrest bail.5. heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned public prosecutor.6. whether the confession statement of the co- accused is admissible or not has to be decided by thetrial court during trial. in view of the embargo under section 41a of the abkari act, and the decision of the apex court in muraleedharan v. state of kerala, 2001 khc 411, i find that the application for pre-arrest bail cannot be entertained by this court. under the circumstances, the application is only to be dismissed.7. the applicant is therefore directed to surrenderbefore the investigating officer within two weeks and the investigating officer shall, after interrogation, produce him before the jurisdictional magistrate and that he shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail before the jurisdictional magistrate, which shall be disposed of preferably on the very same date, keeping in view the dictum of this court in sukumari v. state of kerala, 2001 (1) klt 22. sd/- dkr ashok menon judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 29TH MAGHA,1942 CRIME NO.1/2021 OF Valappatanam Police Station , Kannur PETITIONER/S: RANJITH KUMAR P, AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF KUMARAN, PALAKKAL HOUSE, POOTHAPPARA, AZHIKODE POST, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670009. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR SMT.ATHIRA SANKAR P.K. RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031. R1 BY SMT.V.SREEJA -PP OTHER PRESENT: THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 18th day of February 2021 This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

2. The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1/2021 of Valapattanam Police Station for having allegedly committed the offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

31.12.2020 at about 22.45 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police and his party while on patrol duty reached a place Poothapara, they found the applicant and another were found in possession of 4.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The applicant fled away from there and could not be apprehended.

4. The applicant states that he is innocent and that he has been implicated solely on the confession statement given by the other accused and it is not admissible in law, and therefore, seeks pre-arrest bail.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Whether the confession statement of the co- accused is admissible or not has to be decided by the

trial court during trial. In view of the embargo under Section 41A of the Abkari Act, and the decision of the Apex Court in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala, 2001 KHC 411, I find that the application for pre-arrest bail cannot be entertained by this Court. Under the circumstances, the application is only to be dismissed.

7. The applicant is therefore directed to surrender

before the investigating officer within two weeks and the investigating officer shall, after interrogation, produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate and that he shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which shall be disposed of preferably on the very same date, keeping in view the dictum of this Court in Sukumari v. State of Kerala, 2001 (1) KLT 22. Sd/- dkr ASHOK MENON JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2021 Same Parties Ranjith Kumar P vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon