Allowed

George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Feb 2016Bail Appl./706/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to the petitioner in two cases involving alleged offences under the Kerala Forest Act. The court held that since the dispute turned on civil questions of land title and the trees were allegedly cut from property the petitioner claimed as his own, custodial interrogation was not essential, warranting bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to appearing before Investigating Officer within ten days, executing bonds, and not interfering with the investigation.

George Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/4TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 706 of 2016 () -----------------------------CRIME NO. 1/2016 OF ALATHUR FOREST RANGE OFFICE , PALAKKAD

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEORGE AGED 62 YEARS EATTAKUNNEL HOUSE, KORNAPARA, PALAKKUZHY PO ALATHUR VILLAGE, ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER ALATHOOR RANGE OFFICE, ANAKAPARA, ALATHOOR PALAKKAD.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI SHIBU JOSEPH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2016, ALONG WITH BA. 707/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶15

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

¶16

B.A.Nos.706 & 707 of 2016

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2016

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

The accused in O.R.No.1 of 2016 and 20 of 2014 of Alathoor Forest Range, Palakkad for offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 is the petitioner in both the cases.

¶21

The crux of the case of the petitioner is that the property covered by Annexure-I belongs to him, over which the forest officials are trying to establish their claim. On the other hand, the forest officials contend that the property comprised in resurvey No.99 is a parcel of land wherein forest department has got absolute title. It is the allegation of the forest officials that the petitioner herein had trespassed into that land and cut and removed few trees. In O.R.No.1 of 2016, further allegation is that the petitioner permitted the panchayath to erect a water tank for drinking water purpose in the item of property over which the forest has absolute title and possession. Apprehending arrest, petitioner in both the cases seek bail.

¶22

B.A.Nos.706 & 707/16

¶23

¶24

The crux of the contention is whether the property from which the trees have been admittedly cut and removed and the plot wherein the petitioner admittedly permitted the panchayath to erect a water tank belongs to the forest department or the petitioner. Essentially, it is a question of establishing title over the disputed land, which has got a flavour of civil dispute. Learned Public Prosecutor has justifiably raised a contention that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted since the stump of the trees and the timber have not been recovered and the tools used for cutting, persons engaged and the mode of cutting of the trees are yet to be established. Considering the nature of rival claims made by the forest and the petitioner herein, I feel that custodial interrogation may not be essential since it is the case of the petitioner that the property from where the trees were admittedly cut and removed admittedly belongs to him, thereby accepting the contention of the forest that the trees were cut. It is also admitted that it was with his permission that the water tank was constructed. Having regard to these facts, the question is now confined to the identity of the property and to establish its title. Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in both the cases subject to the following conditions.

¶25

B.A.Nos.706 & 707/16

¶26

¶27

(i) Petitioner in each case shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing two separate bonds in O.R.No.1 of 2016 and O.R.No.20 of 2014 of Alathoor forest range for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶28

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶29

(iii) He shall not get involved in any other identical offence and shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶30

The anticipatory bail applications are allowed as above.

¶31

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶32

Sbna/24/2/16

¶33

True Copy

¶34

P A to Judge

George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George 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

Rossy Vs State of Kerala

Manu Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

Rahman Y. Vs State of Kerala

Fasna Vs State of Kerala

Najumudeen Vs State of Kerala