Dismissed

Joy v. Forest Range Officer Kollengode Forest

Kerala HC14 Aug 2009Bail Appl./4220/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a bail application filed by a second accused accused under the Kerala Forest Act. The court declined to grant anticipatory bail, deeming it unnecessary as the first accused had already received relief, and advised the petitioner to surrender for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the Magistrate and seek regular bail.

Joy Vs Forest Range Officer Kollengode Forest — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4220 of 2009() -----------------------------------------(O.R.NO.9/2009 OF KOLENGODE FOREST RANGE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT)

¶2

PETITIONER:2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------JOY, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT POOMKUDIYIL HOUSE, ADIMALY P.O., MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.S.JIJI

¶3

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR

¶4

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶5

Kss

¶6

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

¶7

B.A.No.4220 of 2009

¶8

ORDER

¶9

Petitioner is the second accused in O.R.No.

¶10

9/2009 of Kollengode Forest Range. Allegation against the petitioner and co-accused is that they committed offence under Section 27(1)(e)(i)(iii) and (iv) of Kerala forest Act. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶12

and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶13

As per order in B.A.No.3295/2009 dated 20.7.2009, first accused was granted anticipatory bail. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for

¶14

the petitioner is that reasons for granting anticipatory bail to the first accused applies to the petitioner also and therefore, he is entitled to get bail. When first accused is already granted

¶15

BA 4220/09 2

¶16

anticipatory bail, I do not find it necessary to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as he could very well surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail. I find no reason why Magistrate will not release the petitioner on bail, when first accused has already been granted anticipatory bail.

¶17

Petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the Magistrate and seek regular bail.

¶18

14^th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv

Joy v. Forest Range Officer Kollengode Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy v. Forest Range Officer Kollengode Forest

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

Bindu Vs State of Kerala

Mayyal Balan Vs State of Kerala and Others

M.S.Purushan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Henry Vijayakumar

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Prince.J.Vellukunnel Vs State of Kerala and Others