Allowed

Nishanth G.Tharakan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2016Bail Appl./8320/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the sole accused in a case involving trespass and damage to a teak plantation. The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted due to the reliance on oral eyewitness testimony and imposed conditions for appearance and investigation cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on conditions including appearance for interrogation, execution of bond, and non-interference with investigation.

Nishanth G.Tharakan Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8320 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 3/2015 OF KOTHAMANGALAM FOREST RANGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

--------------------------------------

¶9

NISHANTH G.THARAKAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE MATHAI THARAKAN, MADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.J.ABHILASH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

------------------------------------------------

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶18

B. A. No. 8320 of 2015

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is the sole accused in O.R. No.3/2015 of Kothamangalam Forest Range.

¶22

According to the prosecution, on 08.09.2015 at about 2.00 a.m. the accused trespassed into the forest teak plantation and using a vehicle rammed against the barricade and caused damage to it. A crime was registered, invoking the IPC offences as well as under the Forest Act. Petitioner apprehending arrest has sought for anticipatory bail.

¶23

Heard and examined the records.

¶24

The specific case of the petitioner is that, he has some land near or adjoining the forest land. There seems to be some dispute in relation to the right arising out of that land. Suffice to say that the allegation against the accused now is sought to be established through the oral testimony of the eye witnesses who had seen the incident. Hence the custodial interrogation of the accused does not appear to be warranted in this case.

¶25

B. A. No. 8320 of 2015

¶26

¶27

Hence I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶28

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Forest Officer within 10 days from today and offer himself for interrogation.

¶29

(ii) Thereafter if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail, on he executing a bond for a sum of 40,000/- ₹ (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶30

(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other identical offence and shall appear before the Investigation Officer as and when called for.

¶31

(iv) He shall not interfere in the process of investigation, threaten or coerce the witnesses.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶34

¶35

/True Copy/

¶36

P.A to Judge

Nishanth G.Tharakan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishanth G.Tharakan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mini Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

B.Christopher Vs Ushan Sudevan

Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri.Kallidumbil Abdul Rahiman

Shaji K.A Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Joby Vs State of Kerala