Allowed

Paulose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2017Bail Appl./931/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for alleged offences under the Kerala Forest Act, the High Court granted bail noting that the prosecution case itself indicates the place of occurrence may not be a reserve forest and the investigating officer was confused about the nature of the property.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail after executing a bond for Rs.25,000 each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum subject to standard conditions.

Paulose Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/24TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 931 of 2017 () ------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 1/2017 OF MACHAD FOREST RANGE OFFICE, TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1-3: -------------------------------------

¶8

1. PAULOSE, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 53 YEARS, THANNIMALAYIL HOUSE, PULAKKODE VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. JAYAPRAKASHAN @ UNNI, S/O.PONNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, PLACHINKAYIL HOUSE, PULAKKODE VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3. ANEESH @ THAMBI, S/O.SASI, AGED 26 YEARS, KUTTIPARATHIL HOUSE, MANGADU DESOM, PANGARAPPILLY VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTING FOREST OFFICER, MACHADU FOREST RANGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.A. ANAS

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶18

--------------------------------------B.A.No.931 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2017

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in O.R.No.1/2017 of Elanad Forest Station registered for the offences under Sections 27(1)(e)(ii), 52 and 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and Rules 3, 4 and 7 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Stand on the Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1996. The prosecution case is that the petitioners cut down certain trees including teak trees from a property which is said to be a reserve forest. It was at the instance of the 4^th accused the trees were allegedly cut down.

¶23

The learned counsel submits that even according to the prosecution the place of occurrence is not a reserve forest.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶25

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The very fact that the petitioners are shown to have committed the offences under Rules 3,4 and 7 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Stand on the Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1996 indicates that

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.931 2017

¶29

place of occurrence may not be reserve forest. It appears that there is confusion in the mind of the investigating officer also as to the nature of the property. So, I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioners.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed.

¶31

The petitioners shall be released on bail after

¶32

interrogation on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the investigating officer in connection with this case.

¶33

They shall appear before the investigating officer

¶34

for interrogation between 11 am and 12 noon on the 7^th and 14^th days after their release.

¶35

They shall surrender their passport before the

¶36

lower court concerned or if they do not have one they shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of their release.

¶37

They shall not get themselves involved in any other criminal case while they are on bail.

¶38

They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence

¶39

the witnesses.

¶40

They shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶41

¶42

B.A.No.931 2017

¶43

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶44

learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance

with the law.

Sd/-

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

Paulose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paulose 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

C.P.Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Jaffarkutty @ Jaffar Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Jalajan Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Stephen Vs State of Kerala