Allowed

Varkey v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6783/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed anticipatory bail in a theft case involving removal of trees from irrigation project land, finding custodial interrogation unnecessary given the accused's age and the unsubstantiated charge regarding land ownership.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; accused to appear for interrogation; bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties; conditions imposed regarding cooperation and non-interference.

Varkey Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 22ND ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6783 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.800/2019 OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VARKEY, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.ITTAN, MAMBUKKATTE, THATTANMUKAL, MAZHUVANNUR P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.K.AKHIL SMT.K.SOBHANAKUMARI

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI. RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.6783 OF 2019

¶16

-2-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No. 800 of 2019 of the Kunnathunadu Police Station registered under Section 379 of the IPC.

¶20

It is alleged that the applicant, with intent to commit theft, trespassed into the canal puramboke in 1/7 section of the Kolencherry Sub Division of Periyar Valley Irrigation Project owned by the Irrigation Department and cut and removed 3 teak trees, 2 mahagony trees and a thambakam tree and thereby caused a total loss to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs to the State.

¶21

Sri.T.A.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is the owner of the property having an extent of 73 cents situated at Mazhuvannoor Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk. According to the learned counsel, the trees which were cut and removed, stood in his property and not in the canal puramboke.

¶22

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have perused the case

¶23

records.

¶24

-3-

¶25

Bail Appl..No.6783 OF 2019

¶26

From the report of the Investigating Officer, it appears that a report was called for from the Village Officer to ascertain whether the trees were stood in the canal puramboke. However, it appears that the crime was registered even before obtaining the said report. In that view of the matter, the assertion that the trees had stood in canal puramboke is unsubstantiated even now. The applicant is an agriculturist and is a septuagenarian. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that his custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶27

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

¶28

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶29

ii) He 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.

¶30

Bail Appl..No.6783 OF 2019

¶31

-4-

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶36

Ds 15.10.2019

¶37

JUDGE

Varkey v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varkey 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

Dhanya.P.K, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Samad P.K., Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Haris Vs the State of Kerala

Sabir Salim, Vs State of Kerala

Nidhin Vs State of Kerala