Allowed

Lonakutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2013Bail Appl./8047/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a bail application under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of trapping a wild bear on his property. The court observed that the petitioner's house was locked and family members were away, making it unlikely he was the offender. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including interrogation, bond, and rep

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions including interrogation, bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties, reporting every alternate Saturday, and cooperation with investigation

Lonakutty Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8047 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 7/2013 OF KANNAMKUZHI FOREST STATION OFFICE , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-:

¶8

LONAKUTTY, AGED 70 YEARS S/O.VAREETHU, UDINIPARAMBAN HOUSE, KONNAKUZHY P.O. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT & STATE :-:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

dlk

¶15

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J

¶16

B.A.No.8047 of 2013

¶17

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2013

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is accused, in O.R.No.07 of 2013 of the Konnakuzhy Forest Station for various offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.

¶20

Case is that on 17-11-2013 a wild bore was seen trapped in a snare made of cable, etc., in the property of the petitioner. Somebody informed the Forest Officials about that. They came and released the wild bore to the forest. Case was registered against the petitioner since the incident happened in his property.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that since the incident has happened in the property of the petitioner, he is responsible.

¶22

Learned counsel submits that even the mahazar prepared by the forest official would show that house of the petitioner situated in the same property was seen locked at the relevant time. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, wife and daughter were staying at Trichur since 2 weeks before the alleged incident.

¶23

B.A.No.8047 of 2013

¶24

¶25

In Annexure-A mahazar, it is stated that on enquiry

¶26

by the forest officials it was revealed that owner of the property (petitioner) was not available there. It is also stated that house of the petitioner in the property was seen locked.

¶27

In this circumstances, I am inclined to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner but subject to conditions so that investigation is not affected.

¶28

Resultantly, the application is allowed as under:

¶29

a) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating O.R.No.07 of 2013 of the Konnakuzhy Forest Station on 17-12-2013 at 10 a.m for interrogation.

¶30

b) If interrogation of the petitioner could not completed that day, he shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time as directed by him which the petitioner shall comply.

¶31

c) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be released by the arresting officer, (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties for the like

¶32

sum each before the arresting officer and subject to the following conditions:

¶33

B.A.No.8047 of 2013

¶34

¶35

i) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the

¶36

case on every alternate Saturday between 10 a.m and 12 p.m for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

¶37

ii) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation.

¶38

iii) Petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.

¶39

iv) Petitioner shall not intimidate/influence the

¶40

witnesses.

¶41

v) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigating of the

¶42

case.

¶43

vi) In case any of the above conditions is violated, bail granted hereby is liable to be cancelled for which the investigating officer may move application before the learned magistrate as held in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶46

¶47

/True Copy/

¶48

P.A. to Judge

Lonakutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lonakutty 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Afsal N.A Vs State of Kerala

Alex Vs State of Kerala

Shoukkath Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Kripal Vs the State of Kerala

Irishi Vs State of Kerala