Dismissed

Binoy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2012Bail Appl./4065/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, accused in trespassing into Periyar Reserve Forest to collect river sand and forcibly obstructing forest officials, filed for anticipatory bail. The single-judge bench dismissed the applications, rejecting the grounds and apprehending a likelihood of the accused fleeing.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail applications were dismissed, and the accused were not granted bail at this stage.

Binoy Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2012/19TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4065 of 2012 (C)

¶6

[CRIME NO.289/2012 OF ERUMELI POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶8

1. BINOY, S/O.KUNJUMON, PERUMAN HOUSE, AZHUTHAMUNNI, KANAMALA P.O.

¶9

2. MANU

¶10

S/O.PRASAD, THADATHEL HOUSE, MOOKKENPETTY, KANAMALA P.O.

¶11

3. KLETTAS, S/O.JOSEPH, ERAMPLACKAL HOUSE, MOOKKENPETTY, KANAMALA P.O.

¶12

4. REJI,

¶13

S/O.KUTTAPPAN, NADOOPARAMBIL, KALKETTY, KANAMALA P.O.

¶14

5. VINEESH,

¶15

S/O.KRISHNAN, THAZATHETHIL, KANAMALA P.O.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN.

¶17

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶18

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

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2012, ALONG WITH BA. NO.4060/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Prv.

¶22

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶23

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. Nos. 4060 & 4065 OF 2012

¶24

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶25

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2012

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petitioners are accused in Crime Nos. 7/2012 of Forest Range Office, Pampa and 289/2012 of Erumeli Police Station, Kottayam District. In crime No. 7/2012, the offence alleged against them are under sections 27(1)(e) IV and V of the Kerala Forest Act and sections 27, 29 and 31 of Wild Life Protection Act. In crime No. 289/2012, the offences alleged against them are under sections 353, 341, 143, 147 and 506 (ii) r/w 149 of IPC and section 3(2)(e) of PDPP Act. Apprehending arrest, these petitions are filed for anticipatory bail.

¶28

It is alleged that on 23.05.2012, at about midnight, the petitioners trespassed into the forest area namely Periyar Reserve Forest and unlawfully collected river sand from Pampa river which is situated inside the Periyar Reserve Forest and removed the same in a lorry bearing

¶29

B.A.No.4060 & 4065/2012

¶30

-2-

¶31

registration No. KL-11-D-9749. The Forest Officials on seeing the same, intercepted the lorry. The driver and the cleaner of the lorry had no documents to transport the sand through the forest area. It could be discerned that the sand was collected from Mokkayam side of Pampa river. Thus the driver and cleaner of the lorry were taken into custody. Forest Range Officer was informed accordingly. The lorry, containing the river sand, being driven by the temporary driver of the Forest Department was being taken to the office of the F.R.O.

¶32

While they were so proceeding, so many persons including other petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and prevented the forest officials from proceeding further. The temporary driver of the forest department who was driving the lorry containing sand was forcibly pulled out. Another accused drove the lorry away. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and other accused persons forcibly deterred the public servant from discharging their duties and

¶33

B.A.No.4060 & 4065/2012

¶34

-3-

¶35

also forcibly rescued A4 and A5.

¶36

It is also contended that accused persons caused damage to the official vehicle of the forest officers. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that removal of sand will not attract the offence under the Kerala Forest Act. The specific case is that sand was removed from the river situated within the Periyar Reserve Forest. For the purpose of removal of sand, they trespassed into the forest area, it will attract the offence under section 27(1)(e)(iv). The provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act are also attracted. The materials collected would show the complicity of the other petitioners also. It is a case where accused persons used their muscle power and man power to flout the law of land and to prevent the officers from discharging their official duties and they later sped away from the scene. The petitioners have to be taken into custody and interrogated to collect all matters relevant to the issue.

¶37

The contention raised by the prosecution that

¶38

B.A.No.4060 & 4065/2012

¶39

-4-

¶40

there is likelihood of the accused fleeing to another country or making himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency also cannot be ignored.

¶41

Considering all these aspects, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage.

¶42

These applications are dismissed.

¶43

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶44

¶45

//True copy//

¶46

P.A. to Judge

Binoy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoy 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

Haridasan.P. Vs State of Kerala

V.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Thilakamma Vs State of Kerala

Mahendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police Kunnamangalam

Vinosh Vs State of Kerala

Rajakumar Vs State