Allowed

Navas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2016Bail Appl./79/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding charges for theft of trees, the Kerala High Court allowed bail stating that custodial interrogation was not necessary as facts indicated a property dispute between the petitioner and PWD.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to appearance before Investigating Officer within 10 days, execution of a bond with sureties, and cooperation with investigation.

Navas 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/14TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 79 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1184/2015 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

NAVAS S/O.HASSAINAR, AGED 36 YEARS CHERUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, MANNAMKALA ADIMALI, IDUKKI.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.No.79 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1184/2015 of Adimali Police Station for offences punishable under Section379 of IPC.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner who is an Assistant Engineer of the PWD Road Section of Marayoor had laid a complaint that the petitioner herein had cut and removed two jack fruit trees and one mango tree standing in the Government puramboke land situated near the Adimali Chitharapuram road sometime in between 03.07.2015 and 31.11.2015. On the basis of the complaint, crime was registered and the Police is investigating.

¶21

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the property over which the PWD is claiming right is the absolute property of petitioner having obtained right title and possession on the basis of

¶22

¶23

B.A.No.79 of 2016

¶24

documents. He relied on an agreement for sale dated 13.08.2014, on the strength of which he claimed possession. The learned counsel has produced before me the copies of the prior title deed of assignor also.

¶25

The case diary indicates that the Village Officer of the relevant period had got information in July that two jack fruit trees and one mango tree of 15 years age were cut and removed by the petitioner herein. He had gone to the spot and had seen the activities including the logs that were cut. It appears that the petitioner herein took up a contention of adverse possession. Thereafter steps were taken for measuring the property. The Overseer of the PWD road session has also given statement which also indicates the location were the trees have been identified and are on record.

¶26

Having regard to these facts, the only question that remains is whether the land from which trees were cut belongs to PWD or whether it is land over which the petitioner is entitled to any right based on agreement for sale of title or on the basis of adverse

¶27

B.A.No.79 of 2016 3

¶28

possession. For the above purpose, a custodial interrogation of the petition is not warranted. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶29

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he

¶30

shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶31

(b) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶32

(c ) He shall appear before the Investigating

¶33

Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶34

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶35

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

P.A. TO JUDGE

Navas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navas 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

Raju @ Kochumon Vs State of Kerala

Surendran.K.M Vs the State of Kerala

Ramsheed Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Vs State of Kerala

Subin Philip Vs State of Kerala

Sandhyavu Rijesh @ Rijeesh Vs State of Kerala