Varghese vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Oct 01, 2021

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1674911

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/1674911
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.
Decided On: Oct 01, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./7134/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Varghese

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....inspector, excise range, kalady ), represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam -682 031 sreeja.v- sr.pp this bail application having come up for admission on 01.10.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderapprehending arrest in connection with c.r no.67/2021 of kalady excise range registered for the offence punishable under 55(g) of the kerala abkari act, the petitioner has moved this application under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure.2. the prosecution case is that on 03.09.2021 at about11.45 p.m, the excise team found 180 litres of wash kept concealed by the petitioner on the back side of his residence, in contravention of the provisions of the abkari act. they have conducted search on the basis of a secret information received. as the petitioner was undergoing home quarantine he was not arrested then and there and thus case was registered.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted thathe has been falsely implicated in the case. nothing has been seized from his possession as alleged by the prosecution. but he apprehends arrest and hence he was compelled to approach this court with this application.4. the learned public prosecutor refuted the contentionraised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the contraband was seized from the possession of this petitioner and it was found concealed on the back side of his residential house. having regard to the nature of the accusation levelled against the petitioner, i do not think that this is a fit and appropriate case in which the judicial discretion of this court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. hence he is not entitled to get pre-arrest bail as requested by the learned counsel. dismissed. sd/- shircy v. judge mpm

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943 C.R.NO.67/2021 OF KALADY EXCISE RANGE, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: VARGHESE AGED 55 YEARS S/O. ENASHU, THEKKEDATHU (H), CUTTING DESOM, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ALUVA THALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683101 BY ADV AJEESH M UMMER RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA (EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE, KALADY ), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031 SREEJA.V- SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with C.R No.67/2021 of Kalady Excise Range registered for the offence punishable under 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act, the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution case is that on 03.09.2021 at about

11.45 p.m, the Excise team found 180 litres of wash kept concealed by the petitioner on the back side of his residence, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. They have conducted search on the basis of a secret information received. As the petitioner was undergoing home quarantine he was not arrested then and there and thus case was registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

he has been falsely implicated in the case. Nothing has been seized from his possession as alleged by the prosecution. But he apprehends arrest and hence he was compelled to approach this Court with this application.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor refuted the contention

raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the contraband was seized from the possession of this petitioner and it was found concealed on the back side of his residential house. Having regard to the nature of the accusation levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit and appropriate case in which the judicial discretion of this Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Hence he is not entitled to get pre-arrest bail as requested by the learned counsel. Dismissed. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE mpm

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2021 Same Parties Varghese vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.