High Court Kerala High Court

Purushothaman @ Dwaraka Purushu vs State- Represented By Public … on 30 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
Purushothaman @ Dwaraka Purushu vs State- Represented By Public … on 30 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1832 of 2007()


1. PURUSHOTHAMAN @ DWARAKA PURUSHU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE- REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :30/03/2007

 O R D E R
                           V.RAMKUMAR, J.

                           ----------------------------

            Bail Application Nos. 1832/2007 & 1840/2007

                           -----------------------------

                  Dated this  30th day of March, 2007


                                 O R D E R

The common petitioner in these two applications for

regular bail is the accused in Crime No.1131/2004 of Kasargod

Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of

the Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of

800 packets, each of 100 ml of Karnataka arrack, on 12.11.2004

and the third accused in Crime No.219/2003 of Badiadka Police

Station for an offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the

Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of 5000

packets, each of 100 ml of karnataka arrack, on 21.8.2003. He

was arrested on 22.1.2007 in yet another crime namely Crime

No.149/2004 of Kasargod Police Station. His arrest in these two

crimes were formally recorded on 14.2.2007.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application submitting inter alia that the petitioner is an accused

in three other crimes of similar nature.

3. I am not satisfied that both the grounds enumerated

B.A.1832 & 1840/2007

2

under Clause (b)(ii) of Sec. 41 A of the Abkari Act are present in

this case so as to justify the release of the petitioner on bail.

These two applications are accordingly dismissed.

V.RAMKUMAR,

JUDGE

mrcs