Dismissed

Jayasingh v. Deputy Forest Range Officer

Kerala HC16 Nov 2015Bail Appl./5810/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed four second anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that non-arrest by authorities does not constitute a subsequent development permitting a second application. It rejected the challenge regarding the investigating officer's authorization and refused bail due to the serious nature of the alleged forest offences.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail applications were dismissed.

Jayasingh Vs Deputy Forest Range Officer — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/25TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5810 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 3506/2014 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl. 8576/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

O.R NO. 29/2014 OF OMMALA FOREST STATION OFFICE , PALAKKAD

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

JAYASINGH,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ASOKAN, MANGADANKANDIYIL, MOOCHIKADAVU AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶13

DEPUTY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, OMMALA FOREST STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶15

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH R1 BY SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR FOREST

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-11-2015, ALONG WITH BA. 5812/2015, BA. 5814/2015, BA. 5821/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

cms

¶18

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶19

B.A.Nos. 5810, 5812, 5814 & 5821 of 2015

¶20

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2015

¶21

COMMON ORDER

¶22

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioner is the accused in the above cases registered for the offences under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii)(iv), 47 C(1), 47G(1) of the Kerala Forest Act. The allegation is that he purchased pieces of sandal wood of the trees of which had been cut down and removed from a reserve forest.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

This is the second application filed by the petitioner in both cases. It is settled law that unless there is a development subsequent to the disposal of the earlier application second bail application for the same purpose is not maintainable. The subsequent development pleaded by the petitioner is this: “After dismissal till date no steps were taken to apprehend the petitioner. Moreover, the submission alleged to have been recorded by the officer is not admissible because he has not an authorised officer as per Section 72 of the Kerala Forest Act”.

¶26

The fact that the petitioner has not been arrested after the dismissal of the earlier application does not entitle him to get anticipatory bail. It is not a subsequent development for the purpose of second bail application.

¶27

B.A.Nos. 5810, 5812, 5814

¶28

& 5821 of 2015 2

¶29

6.The submission that the investigating officer is not an authorised officer under Section 72 of the Kerala Forest Act cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this court in Kunhali and

¶30

others v. Forest Range Officer (2012 (2) KLJ 124).

¶31

The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are very serious in nature. In any view of the matter the applications cannot be allowed.

¶32

In the result, these applications are dismissed. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner will surrender before the investigating officer. He may do so if he is so advised.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶35

cms

¶36

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Jayasingh v. Deputy Forest Range Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayasingh v. Deputy Forest Range Officer

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

Mukkanakkil Puthiya Purayil Ummar Vs Puthiya Purayil Jayarajan

Fr. Jolly Joseph Vs Fr. James Puthenpura

Anandaraman Vs State of Kerala

Anish Kumar Vs P.v.Cheriyan

Chandrakumar Vs Prasannakumari

M/S Nanda Associates and Another Vs Union of India and Others