High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 02 KL CK 0073

KRISHNAKUMAR vs STATE OF KERALA

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 February 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
360 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 332 words
1.

This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.20 of 2018 of the Pazhayannur Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under

section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that on 9.1.2018 at 5.10 p.m., the officers attached to the Pazhayannur Police Station conducted a search in the

house owned by one Gopalakrishnan based on a tip off. It is alleged that about 175 litres of spirit and other implements were seized. The aforesaid

Gopalakrishnan is none other than the father-inlaw of the petitioner herein. Investigation revealed that the petitioner and his family members were

the residents of the house. On these allegations, the petitioner was arrayed as the prime accused.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein has nothing to do with the contraband which has been seized.

The premise from where the contraband was seized does not belong to him. The learned counsel would further submit that the only material to

connect the petitioner with the crime is the statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the said prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.353 of 2009 of

the Pazhayannur Police Station which involved offence under the Abkari Act. He was convicted after trial. It is further submitted that the petitioner

was engaged in the liquor business and investigation conducted till date reveals that the premises from where the contraband articles were seized is

possessed by the petitioner himself.

6.

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. The contention of the learned counsel that he is totally

innocent cannot be countenanced. There appears to be convincing materials against the petitioner. I am of the considered view that this is not a fit

case for grant of an order of pre-arrest bail. This petition is dismissed.