Ramanan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 29, 2020

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1767581

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/1767581
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon
Decided On: May 29, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./3100/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramanan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....from the toddy shop allegedly run by the petitioners as the manager and the licensee. it was found that toddy sample was adulterated. hence, a report was filed implicating them as accused.3. the petitioners would contend that they are innocent and that they cannot be held responsible for what has happened and therefore, they are entitled to anticipatory bail.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.5. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously submits that the petitioners had taken steps to send the second sample for chemical analysis and that it is possible that it may not be found adulterated. it is also submitted that they have been falsely implicated.6. in view of the specific embargo under section 41a ofthe abkari act and in view of the decision of the supreme court in muraleedharan v. state of kerala [2001 khc 411], application for anticipatory bail under the abkari act cannot be entertained and therefore, the application is only to be dismissed. however, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks and after their interrogation in case they are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court. they are at liberty to apply for a regular bail before the jurisdictional court, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of on the very same date. with these observations, the b.a is disposed of. sd/- ashok menon judge rmm

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 CRIME NO.39/2020 OF Kayamkulam Excise Range Office , Alappuzha PETITIONER/S: 1 RAMANAN AGED 50 YEARS S/O.PURUSHAN, ABHI HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY SOUTH, 2 ULLAS P.V., AGED 41 YEARS S/O.VIDYADHARAN, ULLAS HOUSE, GOVINDHAMUTTAM MURI, BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL D SUDHAKARAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. 2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KAYAMKULAM EXCISE RANGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA- 690502. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. T.R.RENJITH PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 29th day of May 2020 This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

2. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.39/2020

of Kayamkulam Excise Range, Alappuzha for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution case is that while the excise party were on patrol duty on 27.12.2019 they collected toddy samples from the toddy shop allegedly run by the petitioners as the Manager and the licensee. It was found that toddy sample was adulterated. Hence, a report was filed implicating them as accused.

3. The petitioners would contend that they are innocent and that they cannot be held responsible for what has happened and therefore, they are entitled to anticipatory bail.

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

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously submits that the petitioners had taken steps to send the second sample for chemical analysis and that it is possible that it may not be found adulterated. It is also submitted that they have been falsely implicated.

6. In view of the specific embargo under Section 41A of

the Abkari Act and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala [2001 KHC 411], application for anticipatory bail under the Abkari Act cannot be entertained and therefore, the application is only to be dismissed. However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks and after their interrogation in case they are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court. They are at liberty to apply for a regular bail before the jurisdictional court, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of on the very same date. With these observations, the B.A is disposed of. SD/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE rmm

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