Allowed

Joshi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jun 2018Bail Appl./2397/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC regarding alleged trespass and cutting of a teak forest tree under the Kerala Forest Act, the High Court rejected the apprehension of targeted action, held that custodial interrogation was not necessary, and granted bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs. 40,000 each with two solvent sureties for the same amount, subject to specific conditions.

Joshi Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2397 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 9/2016 OF PERUVANNAMOOZHI FOREST RANGE OFFICE , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 3

¶8

1 JOSHI

¶9

S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, PUTHANPURAKYAL HOUSE, CHEMPANODA (P.O.), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 528

¶10

2 MATHEW JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH MATHEW, ALAKKAL HOUSE, CHEMBANODU (P.O.), PERUVANNAMUZHI (VIA), KOZHIKODE - 673 528.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN

¶12

SRI.SABU GEORGE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶15

2. RANGE FOREST OFFICER, PERUVANNAMUZHY FOREST RANGE, KOZHIKODE - 673 528.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

IAP

¶19

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶20

B.A. No.2397 of 2018

¶21

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2018

¶22

ORDER

¶23

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

2.The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1 and 3 in O.R. No.9 of 2016 of the Peruvannamuzhi Forest Range, registered under Section 27(1)(e)iii & iv of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

¶25

3.It is alleged that the applicants herein trespassed into the Peruvannamuzhi Forest Range, entered the Pannikkottur reserve forest comprised in Sy.No.132, cut and removed a teak tree which stood in the reserve forest and caused a loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the Government. When the equipments used for felling the tree were attempted to be seized, the applicants herein along with the 2^nd accused, are alleged to have abused the Forest officers and deterred them from discharging their official duty.

¶26

4.The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that they are innocent of the allegations. Annexure-A2

¶27

B.A.No.2397 of 2018 2

¶28

purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal in favour of the father of the 2^nd applicant is relied on to contend that the 2^nd applicant had right, title and interest over the holding. The learned counsel would further submit that proceedings were initiated against the son of the 2^nd applicant by the Village Officer, which was stayed by this Court by Annexure-A4 order. The learned counsel would also refer to Annexure-A5 to bring home his point that a subsequent Crime was registered as O.R.No.3 of 2018 and in the Form-I, it has been specifically stated that the property is private land. According to the learned counsel, the applicants have been targeted by the forest officials without any reason.

¶29

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

¶30

6.I have considered the submissions advanced. The main allegation is that the applicants had fallen a teak tree which stood in the reserve forest and attempted to remove the same. The specific contention of the applicants is that the tree stood in the private property of the 2^nd applicant. The applicants have produced certain materials to substantiate that the allegations levelled against them are without basis.

¶31

B.A.No.2397 of 2018 3

¶32

In the facts and circumstances and taking note of the contentions advanced, I am satisfied that the custodial interrogation of the applicants are not necessary for an effective investigation.

¶33

7.In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i)The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶35

ii)The applicants 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.

¶36

iii)The applicants shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶37

B.A.No.2397 of 2018 4

¶38

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

IAP

¶43

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Joshi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joshi 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

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs the State of Kerala

Anil Kumar. D Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Vs State

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Purushan Vs State of Kerala