Disposed

Sajid v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2016Bail Appl./4770/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail for malicious possession of river sand. The Court observed the Sand Act offence is bailable but disposed of the application by directing the jurisdictional Magistrate to decide the regular bail application judiciously on the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Bail application disposed with direction to Magistrate to hear regular bail application on the date of filing.

Sajid Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2016/10TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4770 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 249/2016 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SAJID, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MUHAMADUNNI KADAYIL HOUSE, PURANGU WEST, MARANCHERY PANCHAYATH, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 581.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERLA, ERNAKULAM - 682 032.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA. R.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

============================ B.A.No.4770 of 2016

¶17

============================ Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein seek pre arrest bail in a crime registered under Section 379 IPC and under Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act (Sand Act). The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found illicitly transporting river sand in a vehicle. The police incorporated Section 379 IPC in the FIR on the allegation that sand was unauthorizedly removed from the river bank. On a perusal of the materials, I find that what is prominently alleged by the prosecution is unauthorized or illicit removal of river sand punishable under Section 20 of the Sand Act, which is bailable and cognizable under the law. It is settled that if the allegations constitute any offence under IPC, the police can proceed accordingly besides the prosecution under the Sand Act.

¶20

B.A.No.4770 of 2016 2

¶21

However, the main allegation will have to be looked into by the court when an application for bail comes. In the particular circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to direct the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction to take decision on the request for bail. The petitioner can very well surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, and make application under Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶22

In the result, this bail application is disposed of, with a direction to the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction that in case application for regular bail is filed by the petitioner in Crime No.249 of 2016 of the Kuttippuram Police Station, the same shall be judiciously and appropriately decided on the date of application itself.

Sd/-

P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sajid v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid 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

Jaffer Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Alias Ethakka Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Faijas.v.v Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Sadik Ali Vs the State of Kerala