Allowed

Sugathan.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2017Bail Appl./4627/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, the 4th accused, in a case involving possession of wild animal meat. The court allowed the application but imposed strict conditions including interrogation, periodic appearance, and strict prohibitions on tampering with witnesses or committing further offences.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to conditions including interrogation, periodic appearance on Saturdays, and prohibition on tampering with witnesses or re-offending.

Sugathan.R. Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2017/22ND ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4627 of 2017 ()

¶6

OCCURRENCE REPORT NO. 5/2016 OF PATHANAPURAM FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:

¶8

SUGATHAN.R.

¶9

AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN, SMITHA BHAVAN, KARAVOOR, PIRAVANTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶14

2.THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PATHANAPURAM RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 689 695.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.DHANIL

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

VPS

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶19

B.A. No.4627 of 2017

¶20

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2017

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner has been arrayed as the 4^th accused in O.R. No.5 of 2016 of the Pathanapuram Forest Range Office, Kollam.

¶24

It appears that on 13.7.2016 information was received by the Forest Officials that the meat of a wild animal was secreted in the house of the 1^st accused. Search was conducted and it is alleged that about 2 Kgs of meat of a wild animal was seized. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he had requested the 1^st accused to give a portion of the meat to the 2^nd accused . It was the 3^rd accused who went in his bike and handed over a portion of the meat to the 2^nd accused .

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

BA 4627/2017

¶27

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a person who is residing near to the reserve forest and that he has been falsely implicated. The learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

¶29

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. Only vague allegations are levelled against the petitioner. He had no role in the acts committed by the principal accused. The prosecution has also no case that he had shared the meat of the wild animal.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations raised and also the role played by the petitioner herein, it does not appear to me that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted on the facts of the case. Sufficient safeguards can be imposed to serve the interest of the prosecution.

¶31

In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the forest officer concerned Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for

¶33

BA 4627/2017

¶34

¶35

a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Officer concerned on all Saturdays between 9 AM and 10 AM, for 1 month or till final report is filed, which ever is earlier.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶38

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶39

(v) If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶40

(vi) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned court on being noticed of that fact will be empowered to cancel the bail.

¶41

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶42

vps 13.7.17

Sugathan.R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugathan.R. 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

Kunjumon S.K. @ Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Faizal a. Vs the State of Kerala

Vinodkumar Vs State of Kerala

Reji.C.Moncy Vs the State of Kerala

Benny Paul P. Vs State of Kerala