Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16240
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
VINESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./1234/2013
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
A lack of evidence against a detainee may warrant the grant of bail, provided conditions are imposed to ensure compliance and safeguard the investigation.
Headnote:
Bail - Offences under Abkari Act - Section 55(a), 55(i) - The court considered the lack of evidence for the charges against the petitioner and decided to grant bail, placing conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for storing contraband spirit at the house of another accused. He has been in custody since the arrest, and his bail application was previously rejected due to insufficient evidence linking him to the offense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to substantiate the charges against the petitioner after examining the prosecution's case and considering that another accused had already been granted bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the evidence and circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that pre-trial detention was unwarranted due to insufficient evidence against the petitioner, which justified granting bail under specific conditions.
Final Decision: The petition for bail is allowed, and the petitioner will be released on conditions set by the court.
O R D E R
Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No. 18 of 2013 of Kilikolloor Police Station for offence under Section 55 (a) and (i)
of the Abkari Act .
2. The petitioner was arrested on 14.01.2013. Ever since he is in judicial custody. His application for bail was rejected by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Now this petition seeking an order to release the petitioner on bail.
3. The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner had stored 3430 liters of spirit at te house of the 2nd accused. Having heard either side, it appears that on the basis of the so called confession statement given by the petitioner, the house of the 2nd accused was raided and the contraband was seized. Though the petitioner was arrested on 14.01.2013, so far the prosecution could not collect any materials to show that either the petitioner purchased the contraband from any person or that any person had supplied the contraband to the petitioner or that it was transported by the petitioner. It is also revealed that the 4th accused was already released on bail by the Sessions Judge. In the above circumstance, I find that no more pre-trial detention of the petitioner is warranted and it would be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail on conditions.
In the result, this petition is allowed and there would be an order directing the the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kollam to release the petitioner on bail on executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like amount to his satisfaction subject to the following conditions.
1. Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer at 10 A.M. on every Thursdays for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, which ever event occurs first.
2. Petitioner shall not leave the district without prior permission of the Magistrate. 3. Petitioner shall not make any promise, inducement or threat to any person who is likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the investigating officer or to the court.
4. Petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Magistrate concerned. If the petitioner had not obtained any passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the Magistrate.
5. Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime. In the event, any other crime is committed by the petitioner, this order granting bail would stand cancelled.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
