Allowed

Kuriakose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Nov 2011Bail Appl./6745/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to an accused running an unlicensed quarry under the Mines and Minerals Act and Explosives Acts. The court noted the petitioner had complied with a prior direction to appear before the investigating officer, leading to the grant of bail subject to reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions to report to the investigating officer on alternate Mondays and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6745 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.374/2011 OF PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶6

PETITIONER : ACCUSED :

¶7

¶8

KURIAKOSE, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, EDASSERIL HOUSE NATIAN CHIRA, P.O.CHELAKKODE, TALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶16

Bail Appln.No.6745 of 2011

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2011

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

¶20

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.374 of 2011 of Pazhayannoor Police Station, Thrissur District.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 4(1) read with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act, Section 9B (1)(b) of the Explosives Act and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act.

¶22

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 02/11/2011, the following order was passed:

¶23

The prosecution case is that the petitioner was running a quarry without required licence for the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the land in which the quarry is located. However, as per Annexure-B agreement, lease was granted in favour of one Ali to run the quarry for the period from 27.11.2008 to 30.12.2012 on an yearly rental of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner submits that though he is the owner of the land, he has no connection

¶24

Bail Appln.No.6745/2011

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

with the conduct of the quarry from November, 2008 onwards, and therefore, no offence can be attributed against him.

¶27

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 9^th and 10^th November, 2011.

¶28

Post on 15^th November, 2011.

¶29

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.374 of 2011 of Pazhayannoor Police Station, Thrissur District till 18^th November, 2011.

¶30

The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any.”

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 02/11/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶32

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences and also taking note of the

¶33

Bail Appln.No.6745/2011

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

fact that the direction in the order dated 02/11/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶36

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶37

b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶38

c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶39

d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶40

Bail Appln.No.6745/2011

¶41

: 4 :

¶42

e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶43

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶44

above.

¶45

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶46

skj

Kuriakose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuriakose v. State of Kerala

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

Sijo Pathrose and Others Vs State of Kerala

Shebin Muhammed Vs the S.I. of Police and Another

Soana.D Vs State

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Souda Beevi Vs the Ast.Commissioner & Another

Xavier Vs State of Kerala