Allowed

Jospin Raj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jan 2018Bail Appl./88/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two accused alleged of illegal mining and river sand excavation. The court held that pre-arrest bail is viable, subject to strict conditions including cooperation with investigation and appearance before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including appearance before investigation officer within ten days, cooperation with investigation, and non-violation of fidelity.

Jospin Raj Vs State of Kerala — Mining and Natural Resources | 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 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 27TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 88 of 2018 ------------------CRIME NO. 1169/2017 OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2

¶7

1 JOSPIN RAJ, AGED 37, S/O. JERALD, OOTTUKUZHIKKARA HOUSE, KAKKOLI, POZHIYOOR P.O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 513.

¶8

2 SHYJU. R., AGED 32, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, KAKKOLI HOUSE, POZHIYOOR P.O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 513.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.1169/2017 OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU. S.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶16

B.A No.88 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

2.The petitioners herein are the accused nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.1169 of 2017 of Pozhiyoor Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 379 & 34 of the IPC, 4(1), 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 58 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1957 and Sec.20 and 22 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Removal of River Sand Act, 2001.

¶21

3.The allegation is that the petitioners herein excavated river sand from the Pozhiyoor canal and dumped the same on the side of the canal. When the Sub Inspector of Police, Pozhiyoor based on reliable information reached the spot, the accused are alleged to have taken to their heels. The names and details of the petitioners were allegedly disclosed by the local people who were present there.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the allegations. They are not persons with prior criminal antecedents and they have been

¶23

B.A No.88 of 2018

¶24

¶25

roped in merely on the strength of the statement given by the some one who had an axe to grind against them.

¶26

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, investigation conducted till date points the complicity of the petitioners.

¶27

6.I have considered the submissions advanced. It appears that the sand which was allegedly excavated has been seized. Furthermore, the names and details of the petitioners were furnished by certain individuals.

¶28

7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, the antecedents of the petitoner and other facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is unwarranted. I am of the view that pre arrest bail can now be granted to the petitioners. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶29

i). The petitioners shall appear before the investigation 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.

¶30

ii). The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between

¶31

B.A No.88 of 2018

¶32

¶33

9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶34

iii)The petitioners 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.

¶35

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

¶36

v). The petitioners shall not leave India without seeking the prior permission of the court having jurisdiction.

¶37

v) If they surrender before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶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

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

P.A TO JUDGE

¶42

Jospin Raj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jospin Raj 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

Raziya Salam Vs State of Kerala

Nujab Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anas Vs State of Kerala

Suresh M.G Vs Superintendent of Police, Kottayam

Thulaseedharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Vs State of Kerala