Dismissed

Nagarajan v. Forest Range Officer and Another

Kerala HC10 Jun 2009Bail Appl./1644/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that the allegations of leading an offence under the Kerala Forest Act and involvement in other criminal cases made it a non-fit case for discretionary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; petitioner not entitled to relief.

Nagarajan Vs Forest Range Officer and Another — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1644 of 2009() ---------------------------------------

¶6

O.R NO.1/2009 OF THOLPETTY FOREST RANGE

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

NAGARAJAN, S/O.VENKATACHALA PILLAI, GOPAL NIVAS, GAS ROAD, ERAMATHERUVU, MANANTHAVADY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

¶13

FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THOLPETTY FOREST RANGE, THOLPETTY.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

SRI. M.S BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶18

B.A. No. 1644 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2009

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in O.R. No.1/2009 of Tholpetty Forest Range.

¶22

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 27(1)(e)(iii)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act.

¶23

The prosecution case is that on 26/02/2009 at

¶24

about 9 P.M., while the Section staff of Bavali Section, Tholpetty Forest Range was on patrol duty, they found some people carrying timber on their head. On seeing the officers, the accused ran away leaving the timber. One Chinnappa @ Chinnu (A5) was apprehended. The investigation reveals that the petitioner is the kingpin of the offence and that large quantity of timber trees were cut and removed from the reserve forest. It is also revealed that the petitioner is the accused in two other Session Cases involving abkari offences. It is also stated in the statement filed by the first respondent that it is reliable learnt that the petitioner is involved in forest

¶25

B.A. No. 1644 /2009

¶26

¶27

offence in the nearby Karnataka Reserve Forest.

¶28

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by

¶29

the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to get an order of anticipatory bail.

¶30

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶32

scm

Nagarajan v. Forest Range Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagarajan v. Forest Range Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulfikar Vs State of Kerala

Meethala Kuttan @ Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Moideen @ Moidu Vs State of Kerala

Basheer and Another Vs State of Kerala

E.M.P.Shukkoor Vs State of Kerala

T.S. Balaswamy Pillai Vs State of Kerala