Allowed

Lakshmanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Sept 2015Bail Appl./4733/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted bail to accused persons charged with ivory trading and forest offences under the Wild Life Protection Act, imposing conditions including surety bonds, arrest appearances, and restrictions on leaving Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on ₹50,000 bond each with two solvent sureties from Kerala, subject to strict conditions including regular arrest appearances and staying within the state.

Lakshmanan 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. 4733 of 2015

¶6

OR.NO. 1/2015 OF EDAMALAYAR FOREST STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCISED NO.23 & 24:

¶8

1. LAKSHMANAN, AGED 57 YEARS,

¶9

S/O PADMANABHAN, ARIKKAPPILLIYIL HOUSE,

¶10

ARAKKUZHA KARA, MARADI VILLAGE,

¶11

MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶12

2. AMBIKA, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O LAKSHMANAN, ARIKKAPPILLIYIL HOUSE,

¶13

ARAKKUZHA KARA, MARADI VILLAGE,

¶14

MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.M.B.SANDEEP SMT.R.PRIYA SRI.V.VISAL AJAYAN SRI.B.SURJITH SRI.ABHILASH JOSE SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER SMT.R.ANJANA

¶16

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN:682 031.

¶18

BY ADDL. DGP SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKARA

¶19

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

¶20

mbr/

¶21

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶22

Bail Appl. No.4733 of 2015

¶23

Dated this the 4^th day of September 2015

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶26

Petitioners are accused nos.23 and 24 in O.R.

¶27

No.1 of 2015 of Edamalayar Forest Station.

¶28

Prosecution case in brief is that the 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.

¶29

The allegation against the petitioners is that

¶30

Bail Appl. No.4733 of 2015 2

¶31

the transaction of the ivory took place from the house of the petitioners.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶33

petitioners and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not directly involved in the offence of poaching the elephants or extracting the tusks. The petitioners have been in custody since 18.07.2015. As the investigation in respect of the petitioners have been completed, there is no reason for detaining them in custody any more.

¶35

Learned Additional Director General of

¶36

Prosecution opposing the bail application contended that the petitioners are involved in trading 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 the arrest. The investigation has not been

¶37

Bail Appl. No.4733 of 2015 3

¶38

completed. Since, the State feels that the accused are having inter-State 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.

¶39

Considering the fact that the petitioners are arrested on 18.07.2015 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 directed by this Court.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

3)The court below need not insist on solvency

¶43

Bail Appl. No.4733 of 2015 4

¶44

certificates, but it is made clear that there must be clinching documents to reveal the identity of the sureties and their solvency.

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE

¶54

NSTrue copy//

Lakshmanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmanan 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

Romin Alby Vs State of Kerala

Romin Alby Vs State of Kerala

Sreekandan Nair Vs State of Kerala