Allowed

N.Dharmaraj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Oct 2018Bail Appl./4646/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager of a corporation accused of permitting construction in forest land. The court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary and fixed bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including appearance before IO, non-interference with witnesses, and no new offences.

N.Dharmaraj Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 18TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4646 of 2018

¶6

O.R.NO. 2/2018 OF MUPLIYAM FOREST STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3:

¶8

1 N.DHARMARAJ, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN NARENDRANATH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M/S. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD. RESIDING AT HML BUNGALOW, BEACH ROAD, FORT KOCHI.

¶9

2 TONY THOMAS, S/O. G.THOMAS, AGED 46 YEARS, GROUP MANAGER, HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., MOOPLY ESTATE, KARIKULAM, P.O.PALAPILLY, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 RANGE FOREST OFFICER, VELLIKULANGARA RANGE, MUPLIYAM FOREST STATION - 680 312.

¶13

BY SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K., SPL. G.P. (FOREST)

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No. 4646 of 2018

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶19

The applicants herein are accused Nos.2 and 3 in O.R.No.2 of 2018 registered at the Mupliyam Forest Station under Sections 27(1)(e), (i),(iv), 66 and 84 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

¶20

The 1^st applicant is the Chief Executive Officer and the 2^nd applicant is the Group Manager of M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. On the strength of various deeds, which fact is admitted by the prosecution, M/s. Harrison Malayalam Ltd. has acquired leasehold right over about 6000 acres of property. The said rubber plantation is known as Mooply Estate. It is alleged that in violation of the terms of the lease, the applicants permitted the 1^st accused in the aforesaid crime to construct a Madrasa building in a property having an extent of about 0.1937 hectares. The value of the property has been assessed as Rs.7 lakhs and the value of the construction at Rs.20 lakhs.

¶21

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that there is no merit in the allegations levelled against

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 4646 of 2018 3

¶23

them. It is contended that the estate is having well defined boundaries and the allegation that they connived with the 1^st accused to put up a building in the estate is far-fetched. The said conclusion has been arrived at without even conducting a proper survey is the submission. It is urged that the applicants being the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager respectively are persons occupying responsible positions and for the prohibited acts committed by the 1^st accused of encroaching into forest land, the applicants need not be arrested and detained.

¶24

The learned Special Government Pleader for Forests has strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the Tahsildar, Chalakkudy has conducted a detailed reconnaissance of the area and he has prepared a sketch which shows that construction has been put up by the 1^st accused in forest land which has been leased out to M/s Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. It is submitted that the specific allegation against the applicants herein are that they connived with the 1^st accused.

¶25

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials made available. It is clear from the materials that a Madrasa building has been constructed by the 1^st accused in the forest land. The question is as to whether the same

¶26

Bail Appl..No. 4646 of 2018

¶27

¶28

has been put up in the forest land outside the area possessed by the applicants or inside the leasehold area. At any rate, necessary steps are to be taken to clear the buildings which has been constructed by the 1^st accused without the sanction of law. The allegation against the applicants is that they have consented to the encroachment in portions leased out to them. For investigating into that aspect, the custodial interrogation of the applicants does not appear to be necessary. I am inclined to allow this application on conditions.

¶29

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from 15.10.2018 and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶30

(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶31

Bail Appl..No. 4646 of 2018

¶32

¶33

ii) They 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.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

SD/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

IAP

¶40

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

N.Dharmaraj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Dharmaraj 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

Abdul Sathar Vs State of Kerala

Afsal M.K. Vs the Circle Inspector of Excise

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Georgekutty John Vs State of Kerala

Hemamalini Vs State of Kerala

N.Dharmaraj Vs the State of Kerala