Satyan vs the State of Kerala,

Satyan vs The State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 05, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1891975

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/1891975
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar
Decided On: Apr 05, 2019
Case Number: Bail Appl./2394/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satyan

Respondent

The State of Kerala,

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice b.sudheendra kumar friday, the 05th day of april 2019 / 15th chaithra, 1941 against the order/judgment in crmp 461/2019 of judicial magistrate of first class - i, karunagappally dated 21-03- crime no. 42/2019 of karunagappally excise range office , kollam petitioner/s: satyan aged 47 years s/o.paramu, padippura vayalil veedu, punnamkulam muri, adinad village, karunagappally, kollam district. by advs. sri.r.mohana babu ajith.m respondent/s: the state of kerala, represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam-682031. other present: sri.c.s.hrithwik,pp this bail application having come up for admission on 05.04.2019, the court on the same day passed the following: -2-orderthe petitioner is the accused in crime no.42/2019 of karunagappally exchange range registered for the offences punishable under sections 55(g) and 8(2) of the abkari act on the allegation that on 16.3.2019 at 6.40 a.m., the petitioner was found in possession of ten litres of arrack, 230 litres wash and other utensils for manufacturing arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the abkari act.2. the petitioner was arrested from the spot and ever since he has been in custody.3. heard.4. the learned public prosecutor has opposed the application. -3-5. it appears that there are materials to primafacieconnect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. since the learned public prosecutor has opposed the application, i am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage in view of the embargo under section 41a of the abkari act, particularly when there are materials to primafacie connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence.in the result, this bail application stands dismissed. sd b. sudheendra kumar, judge. dl/5.4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 461/2019 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 21-03- CRIME NO. 42/2019 OF Karunagappally Excise Range Office , Kollam PETITIONER/S: SATYAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O.PARAMU, PADIPPURA VAYALIL VEEDU, PUNNAMKULAM MURI, ADINAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.R.MOHANA BABU AJITH.M RESPONDENT/S: THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.42/2019 of Karunagappally Exchange Range registered for the offences punishable under Sections 55(g) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act on the allegation that on 16.3.2019 at 6.40 a.m., the petitioner was found in possession of ten litres of arrack, 230 litres wash and other utensils for manufacturing arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

2. The petitioner was arrested from the spot and ever since he has been in custody.

3. Heard.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. -3-

5. It appears that there are materials to primafacie

connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Since the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage in view of the embargo under Section 41A of the Abkari Act, particularly when there are materials to primafacie connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence.

In the result, this bail application stands dismissed. sd B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE. dl/5.4

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2019 Same Parties Satyan vs The State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar