Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.Arun
Vishnu – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is the sole accused seeking bail. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments focus on the judicial discretion in granting bail despite previous rejections. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court discusses the application and interpretation of bail provisions under section 232. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
V.G. Arun, J.
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.27 of 2024 registered at the Excise Range Office, Kattakkada for the offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act 1 of 1077, now pending as C.P.No.185 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada. The crime is registered on the allegation that, on 08.05.2024, at 07:30 pm, the excise party found the petitioner selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) at his rented house and recovered 1 litre of IMFL from his possession. At the investigation stage, the petitioner moved applications seeking pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Court as well as this Court, but the same were dismissed as per Annexures A1 and A2 orders. The petitioner has approached this Court again, this time seeking an opportunity to surrender before the trial court and for a direction to consider his bail application on the day o
The court held that a committal court retains authority to consider bail applications despite statutory provisions, affirming the importance of personal liberty in bail considerations.
The second proviso to Section 232 of the BNSS does not prevent committal courts from considering pending applications prior to committal.
The anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court was set aside, and the jurisdictional court must consider the regular bail application on its merits, emphasizing adherence to higher court directi....
The judgment establishes that in cases triable by Magistrates, the discretion to grant bail should be exercised liberally, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The court affirmed that in cases triable by Magistrates, the discretion to grant bail should be exercised liberally, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the importance of not prolonging dete....
The omission to specify the exact offence in a committal order is not fatal if the evidence clearly supports the need for a Sessions trial.
Even if the accused is a habitual offender, recidivism does not automatically negate the right to bail, especially for minor offenses. The presumption of innocence must be upheld.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
