Dismissed

Manaf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2015Bail Appl./875/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala entertained an anticipatory bail application by the 2nd accused in a case involving possession of 146 kg sandalwood. The court refused anticipatory bail due to prima facie materials connecting the petitioner to the offence but permitted surrender within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Adjournment to surrender within 10 days; if surrendered, petitioner may apply for bail to jurisdictional magistrate.

Manaf Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/27TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 875 of 2015 () ------------------------------

¶5

CRIME NO. 18/2014 OF FOREST RANGE OFFICE, THAMARASSERY

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2: ---------------------------

¶7

MANAF, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. LATE UMMER, MELETHODUKAYIL HOUSE KODUVALLY VILLAGE, KARUVANPOYIL POST KOZHIKODE - 673 572. BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31.

¶10

2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 571.

¶11

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1706-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

Bail Application No. 875 of 2015

¶16

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2015

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in OR No.18/2014 of Forest Range Office, Thamarassery registered under Sections 27(1) (d), 47(A), (B), (C), (D), (F), (G), (H) and 52 of the Kerala Forest Act.

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that on 29.09.2014, when the house of the petitioner was searched, a plastic bag containing 146 Kg of Sandalwood pieces were found on the courtyard of the said house. The 1^st accused was arrested from the spot and the petitioner ran away from the place.

¶20

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

¶23

application. It appears that there are materials to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Investigation has to be conducted with respect to the source of the sandalwood. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner, I am not inclined to

¶24

B.A. No. 875 of 2015

¶25

¶26

grant the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner.

¶27

In the result, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender before the 2^nd respondent within 10 days from today, if so adivsed. In the event of such surrender, the 2^nd respondent shall produce the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Magistrate after interrogation. If the petitioner files any application for bail on his production before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the application for bail, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶30

/true copy/

¶31

P. A. to Judge

¶32

Manaf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manaf 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

P.P. Raman Vs State

Siby G. John Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor Ahmed Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Vs State of Kerala

Nithin Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala