Udayakumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 29, 2020

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1767580

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/1767580
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon
Decided On: May 29, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./3099/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Udayakumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

..... sections 55(b), 55(g), 8(1) and 8(2) of the abkari act. theprosecution case is that the petitioners were found tobe involved in distilling and bottling of illicit arrack. the second petitioner states that he is a lineman in the kerala state electricity board. it iscontended that he had gone there to inspect the default in the electric supply and was falsely implicated.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.4. in view of the specific bar under section 41a of the abkari act, an application for anticipatory bail cannot be considered. this has been so held by the honorable supreme court of india in muraleedharan v. state of kerala [2001 khc 411]. under the circumstances, this bail application cannot be entertained and is only to be dismissed.5. the petitioners are, therefore, directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. soon after interrogation, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate beforewhom the petitioners are at liberty to apply for regular bail. the applications for regular bail so filed by the petitioners shall be considered andpreferably disposed of by the magistrate, on merits, on the very same day itself. with these observations, the bail application is dismissed. sd/- ashok menon judge jg appendix petitioner's exhibits annexure-a1 : true copy of the fir no.791/2020 of kadakkal police station in kollam district.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.3099 OF 2020 CRIME NO.791/2020 OF Kadakkal Police Station , Kollam PETITIONERS/A3 & A4:

1 UDAYAKUMAR AGED 51 YEARS SON OF KUNJUKRISHNAN, KOCHUPADINJATTATHIL HOUSE, ATTUPURAM, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 536. 2 BIJU, AGED 39 YEARS SON OF SATHYAVRATHAN, KOUSTHUBHAM HOUSE, KARIYAM, EDATHARA P.O., KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 536. BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 536. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. AMJAD ALI PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ASHOK MENON, J.

------------------------------------ BA No.3099 of 2020 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2020

O R D E R

This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.791/2020

of    Kadakkal       Police     Station     for     having      allegedly
committed      offences      punishable     under       Sections       55(b),
55(g),       8(1)   and      8(2)   of    the    Abkari     Act.         The

prosecution case is that the petitioners were found to

be   involved       in    distilling     and    bottling     of    illicit
arrack.      The    second    petitioner       states    that     he    is   a
lineman in the Kerala State Electricity Board.                         It is

contended that he had gone there to inspect the default in the electric supply and was falsely implicated.

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

4. In view of the specific bar under Section 41A of the Abkari Act, an application for anticipatory bail cannot be considered. This has been so held by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala [2001 KHC 411]. Under the circumstances, this Bail Application cannot be entertained and is only to be dismissed.

5. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. Soon after interrogation, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate before

whom     the       petitioners     are       at    liberty    to    apply    for
regular bail.             The applications for regular bail so
filed        by    the    petitioners        shall    be     considered      and

preferably disposed of by the Magistrate, on merits, on the very same day itself. With these observations, the Bail Application is dismissed. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.791/2020 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Udayakumar vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon