Allowed

Romin Alby v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Sept 2015Bail Appl./4598/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to petitioners accused of elephant poaching and ivory trading. Investigation had advanced considerably, though some accused remained at large. Court addressed complaints of custodial harassment and imposed strict bail conditions including passport surrender and court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail to Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties under Conditions 1 to 9 including passport surrender and weekly court appearances.

Romin Alby Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/13RD BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4598 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1/2015 OF EDAMALAYAR FOREST STATION OFFICE

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 16 AND 17 :

¶8

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

¶9

1. ROMIN ALBY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. XAVIER ALBY, ANAKOMBIL HOUSE, T.C. 45/993 WATTS ROAD, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.

¶10

2. ANTONY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. XAVIER ALBY, NANDANCODE SHALOM HOUSE, KAVADIYAR VILLAGE, KAVADIAYR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.ALAN PAPALI

¶12

SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.J.VIMAL SRI.ANTONY ROBERT DIAS KUM.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL) SRI.NISHIL.P.S.

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶14

STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682031.

¶15

BY MR. TOM JOSE PADINJAREKARA ADGP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶19

Bail Appl. No.4598 of 2015

¶20

Dated this the 4^th day of September 2015

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioners are accused nos.16 and 17 in O.R.

¶24

No.1 of 2015 of Edamalayar Forest Station.

¶25

Prosecution case in brief is that the

¶26

petitioners along with other accused persons committed trespass, armed with weapons like gun etc., into a Reserve Forest in Thundathil Forest Range of Malayattoor notified reserve. It is alleged that the accused were not having any licence to hold or use the gun and some of the accused hunted wild elephants by using guns and extracted the tusks. They handed over tusks to other accused persons for commercial purposes. Therefore, the accused persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iv) of Kerala Forest Act under Section 2(16), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39, 51, 52 of Wild Life Protection Act.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶28

Bail Appl. No.4598 of 2015 2

¶29

petitioners and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the petitioners are not directly involved in the offence of poaching the elephants or extracting the tusks. The petitioners have been in custody since 11.07.2015. As the investigation in respect of the petitioners have been completed, there is no reason for detaining them in custody any more.

¶31

There is a complaint by the petitioners that they have been manhandled by the Senior Forest Officers while he was in custody. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Museum Police, Thiruvananthapuram City has registered Crime No.1026 of 2015 for the offences under Secs.323, 324 and 326 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further they apprehend physical harassment if they appear before the forest officers.

¶32

Learned Additional Director General of

¶33

Prosecution opposing the bail application contended that

¶34

Bail Appl. No.4598 of 2015 3

¶35

the petitioners are involved in trading and several items of ivory and some pieces were recovered from their possession. It is also submitted that there are about 40 persons involved in the crime and identity of many of them are yet to be revealed. That apart about 10 persons evade arrest. The investigation has not been completed. Since, the State feels that the accused are having interState connections, the Government is seriously thinking of handing over the investigation to CBI. The process is on. Therefore, the petitioners shall not be released on bail at this moment, as there is every likelihood of their fleeing from justice and meddling with further investigation.

¶36

Considering the fact that the petitioners are arrested on 11.07.2015 and the investigation has advanced to a considerable extent, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with the following conditions. It is made clear that the investigating officer shall not give room for any complaint of harassment of the petitioners while they appear before the investigating officer as

¶37

Bail Appl. No.4598 of 2015 4

¶38

directed by this Court.

¶39

1)The petitioners will be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the presiding officer of the court concerned.

¶40

2)The sureties shall produce documents to reveal their identity and solvency.

¶41

3)The court below need not insist on solvency certificates, but it is made clear that there must be clinching documents to reveal the identity of the sureties and their solvency.

¶42

4)The sureties shall be persons hailing from the State of Kerala.

¶43

5)The petitioners shall surrender their passports if any forthwith. If they do not have passports, shall file an affidavit before the court below stating that fact.

¶44

1. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Thursdays between 10 a.m and 11 a.m. until the final report is filed.

¶45

1. They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶46

1. They shall not in any manner interfere or meddle with the investigation.

¶47

1. They shall not leave the limits of the State of Kerala without the permission of the lower court.

¶48

Bail Appl. No.4598 of 2015 5

¶49

If any of the conditions are breached, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail without referring the matter to this Court.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE

/ True Copy /

P.A. To Judge

//True copy//

Romin Alby v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Romin Alby 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

Shino Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

P.K. Thomas Vs Cbcid, Kozhikode

Lakshmanan Vs State of Kerala

Romin Alby Vs State of Kerala

Sreekandan Nair Vs State of Kerala