Dismissed

M.K. Dhanil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2017Bail Appl./2504/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by three accused persons in a fuel wood forest offence case. The court held that granting bail could adversely affect the ongoing investigation as the investigation was at an early stage. The petitioners were allowed to surrender for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to surrender for interrogation; if arrest is necessary, they shall be produced before Magistrate.

M.K. Dhanil Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/17TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2504 of 2017 () ------------------------------CRIME NO. 4/2017 OF MUPLIYAM FOREST STATION , TRISSUR

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶7

M.K. DHANIL AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O., CHALAKUDY THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

SIVAKRISHNA MANEKSHA AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SIVADASAN, CHENJERI HOUSE, VETTILAPPARA, ATHIRAPPILLY VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

C.S.SANAL AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SATHYAN, CHALAPARAMBAN HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O., CHALAKUDY THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.JUSTINE JACOB SRI.M.S.DILEEP

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0706-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SKS

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶17

B.A. No. 2504 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1.This application is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶21

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in

¶22

Crime No. 4 of 2017 of Mupliyam Forest Station. In the aforesaid crime, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iv), (iii) and 47 G and Section 61 A of the Kerala Forest Act.

¶23

3.During routine field duty, staff of the Mupliyam Forest Station received information that certain accused had trespassed into the Chandanamkunnu area in Kodassery reserve and they were engaged in the cutting and removal of sandal wood trees. They took to their heels on seeing the forest officials. Some of the accused were caught red-handed and it was found that 14 sandal wood

¶24

B.A.No.2504 of 2017 2

¶25

trees had been felled and its heartwood had been collected. The petitioners are allegedly the accused who

¶26

managed to make good their escape .

¶27

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that they are innocent of the allegations and the main accused have already been arrested.

¶28

5.The prayer of the petitioners were stoutly opposed by the petitioners . It is pointed out that investigation is in the early stages and the if relief is granted the same would be adversely affected .

¶29

6.I have considered the submissions. Having gone through the facts and circumstances, nature of the allegations and the role played by the petitioners herein, it does not appear to me that this Court will be justified in granting reliefs sought for by the petitioners herein. This application is dismissed.

¶30

7.However, at this stage, learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

B.A.No.2504 of 2017 3

¶32

petitioners prays that the petitioners be permitted to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. If the petitioners are so advised, they may surrender before the investigating officer, who shall interrogate them. If arrest of the petitioners is found necessary, the investigating officer shall thereafter produce them before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the statutory period. On such production, if an application for bail is filed, learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, preferably on the same day itself.

¶33

The application for anticipatory bail is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶35

SKS

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

P.A. TO JUDGE

M.K. Dhanil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K. Dhanil 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

Lizzy Thomas Vs State of Kerala

K.C. Lakshman Raj Vs State of Kerala

Shemeer Vs State of Kerala

Madhu Vs State of Kerala

Hanis M.B. Vs State of Kerala

Asbir P.K Vs State of Kerala