Allowed

Ashish P Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2015Bail Appl./49/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by a petitioner accused of possessing wild animals. The court noted lack of evidence against the petitioner and held custodial interrogation unnecessary, directing police to release him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Entrusted to investigating officer to enlarge petitioner on bail upon executing bond of ₹25,000 with two solvent sureties.

Ashish P Joseph 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 B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2015/2ND MAGHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 49 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 14/2014 OF PONGANANGAD FOREST STATION, TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

ASHISH P JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, PADAVAN HOUSE, KOORKKENCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHIBU GEORGE

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶16

============================

¶17

B.A. No. 49 of 2015

¶18

=============================

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2015

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in O.R.No.14 of 2014

¶23

of the Ponganangad Forest Station, Thrissur District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

¶24

On 24.11.2014, two Hedge hogs (Hemiechinus

¶25

auritus), which are wild animals within the meaning of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 were found in the possession of A1. When A1 was questioned, it was revealed that the same were sold to him by A3 and he was keeping it for handing it over to the petitioner.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

There is nothing to show that the petitioner had purchased the said wild animals. Apart from the confession of

¶28

B.A. No.49 of 2015 2

¶29

A1 that it was intended for sale to the petitioner, there is no other evidence against the petitioner. Any wild animals were not seized from the possession of the petitioner. Considering all the above, I am of the view that this is not a case where the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the continued investigation of this case. Matters being so, anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶30

In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶31

(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 09.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. on all Thursdays and Mondays

¶32

B.A. No.49 of 2015 3

¶33

commencing from 29.01.2015 for a period of three

¶34

months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.

¶35

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the

¶36

evidence or influence witnesses.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself

¶38

available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any

¶40

offence while on bail.

¶41

It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

B. KEMAL PASHA JUDGE

¶44

DSV/22/1/15

¶45

// True Copy //

¶46

P.A. To Judge

Ashish P Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish P Joseph 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

Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala

V. Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Indira Vs State of Kerala

K.Nijesh Vs State of Kerala

Saikh Mukthar .P. Vs the State of Kerala

Sayeed Muhammed.P. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police