The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by two accused alleging unauthorized transport of river sand. The court held that if the allegation is true, the act amounts to antisocial activity, making bail inappropriate.
Bail application dismissed; petitioners denied anticipatory bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/30TH JYAISHTA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 2888 of 2017 ()
CRIME NO. 12/2017 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
SUBAIR, AGED 38, S/O.MAMMUNNI, MALANGADAN HOUSE, KALAMKUNNU, MEPPADOM, MAMPAD, MALAPPURAM.
1.
2. MOHAMMED SHAREEF, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, MANJERITHODIKA HOUSE, CHOKKAD, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R. RENJITH.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
B.A. No. 2888 of 2017
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2017
O R D E R
Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2.Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 12 of 2017 of Wandoor Police Station, registered for the offences under Section 379 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 20 r/w Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. The allegation is that they were found transporting river sand without any permit or authority.
4.BA No.614/2017 filed by the petitioners was dismissed as not pressed on 09.02.2017. In the present Bail Application, it is submitted that their custodial interrogation is not necessary and they are innocent. Custodial interrogation is not the only purpose for which
B.A. No. 2888 of 2017
..2..
an accused can be arrested and detained. If the allegation against the petitioners is true, they were engaged in antisocial activities. In such case, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail.
In the result, the Bail Application is dismissed.
Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
bka/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case alleging unauthorized transport of river sand.
Whether the proposed custodial interrogation makes the petitioners innocent or justifies arrest.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SUBAIR
MOHAMMED SHAREEF
STATE OF KERALA
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
