Dismissed

Bhaskaran v. the Dfo, Ranni

Kerala HC29 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4754/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected anticipatory bail for three accused persons facing charges under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The court directed them to surrender by July 14, 2011, for interrogation before any regular bail application could be entertained.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied. Petitioners directed to surrender by 14.07.2011 for interrogation; regular bail可申请 after interrogation.

Bhaskaran Vs the Dfo, Ranni — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4754 of 2011()

¶6

O.R NO. 25/2010 of KARIKULAM FOREST STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:-

¶8

BHASKARAN @ RAGHAVAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE PATHROSE, ANAMOOTTIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, MULAKKUZHA.P.O., CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, WORKING AS GARDENER, CENTUARY HOSPITAL, MULAKKUZHA.P.O., CHENGANNOOR.

¶9

ABRAHAM, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM, KOTTURETHU HOUSE, LAHASSERY, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER (F & A) CENTUARY HOSPITAL, MULAKKUZHA.P.O., CHENGANNOOR.

¶10

K.C.PONNACHEN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHACKO, THALATHIYIL HOUSE, KUTTAPPUZHA, THIRUVALLA, WORKING AS MANAGER (OPERATIONS) CENTUARY HOSPITAL, MULAKKUZHA.P.O., CHENGANNOOR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶12

SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:-

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DEPUTY FOREST RANGER, KARIKULAM FOREST STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶17

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

¶18

ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶21

.........................................

¶22

Bail Application No. 4754 of 2011

¶23

..........................................

¶24

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2011.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in O.R. No. 25 of 2010 of Karikulam Forest Station, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 9, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, seek anticipatory bail.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶28

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are

¶29

to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 112 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.

¶30

State of Maharashtra and Others - (2011) 1 SCC 694 , I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 13.07.2011 or on 14.07.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioners are arrested by the Investigating Officer before interrogation, the petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In

¶31

B.A. No. 4754/2011 -:2:-

¶32

case the interrogation of the petitioners is without arresting them, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or the next day and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.

¶33

In case the petitioners while surrendering before the Investigating Officer have deprived the investigating officer sufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall complete the interrogation even if it is beyond the time limit fixed as above and submit a report to that effect to the Magistrate or the Court concerned. Likewise, the Magistrate or the Court also will not be bound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient time was not available after the production or appearance of the petitioners .

¶34

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2011.

¶35

sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge.

B.A. No. 4754/2011 -:3:-

Bhaskaran v. the Dfo, Ranni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskaran v. the Dfo, Ranni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Chandrasekharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Antony Vs State of Kerala

Kunjumon and Others Vs State of Kerala

Poopesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Ramesh A.S. Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Vs State of Kerala & Another