Dismissed

Das.K.J. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC22 Mar 2010Bail Appl./2905/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disappointed anticipatory bail application of accused China men charged under Section 27(1)(d) of Kerala Forest Act. Court held it was too early to conclude guilt and directed surrender for regular bail within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioners directed to surrender within two weeks and seek regular bail from the Magistrate.

Das.K.J. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2905 of 2009()

¶6

----------------------O.R. NO. 14 OF 2009 OF DEVIKULAM FOREST RANGE

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 3 TO 5

¶8

¶9

DAS.K.J., S/O.JOSEPH, KOCHUNIRAPPEL MUNIYARA P.O., KONNATHADY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK.

¶10

SUKUMARAN K.G., S/O.GOPALAN, KUNNETHOTTATHIL HOUSE, DO. DO.

¶11

SAJEEVAN K.G., S/O.GOPALAN, KUNNETHOTTATHIL HOUSE, DO. DO. DO.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): STATE

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, DEVIKULAM FOREST RANGE OFFICE, IDUKKI DT.

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A. SALIM

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

¶21

Bail Application No. 2905 of 2009

¶22

- - - - Dated, this the 22^nd day of March 2010

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this application filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are the accused in O.R. No. 14 of 2009 on the file of the Devikulam Forest Range Office in Moonnar Division for an offence punishable under Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act for allegedly cutting a removing a rosewood tree in the cardamom hill reserve which is a reserve forest notified under Sec. 18 of Regulation II of 1068 M.E., seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶26

It is too early to hold that the petitioners have not trespassed into the reserve forest and committed the offence alleged. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. There is no reason why the petitioners should not surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail. In case the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate concerned and file an application for regular bail within 2 weeks from today, the Magistrate shall consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. This petition is disposed of as above.

¶27

Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR,JUDGE.

Das.K.J. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Das.K.J. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

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

Niyas N.K. Vs State of Kerala

M. Saliman Vs H.R. Babu Suresh and Another

Sebastian Chokkattu Vs State of Kerala

Shabeer.C.M. Vs the State of Kerala

Najeemudin Vs State of Kerala

Uthaman Vs Excise Inspector, Ranni Excise Range