Allowed

Pookoya.C v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Kerala HC17 Dec 2019Bail Appl./8695/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to a 77-year-old petitioner suffering from end-stage renal disease, who was the 9th accused in a case involving illegal fishing and wildlife violation. Bail was subject to strict conditions including regular appearances and cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on security of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of regular appearance and cooperation with investigation.

Pookoya.C Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep — 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

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.8695 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.15/2019 OF AGATHI POLICE STATION, LAKSHADWEEP

¶7

PETITIONER/9TH ACCUSED:

¶8

POOKOYA.C AGED 77 YEARS S/O LATE KIDAVE KOYA,RESIDING AT CHALAKKAD HOUSE, AGATTI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682553.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI SRI.P.AJAZ SHABEER SRI.T.P.NISHAD KHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL/PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.MANU.S, SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP

¶13

SRI S. MANU. SCGC

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.8695 OF 2019

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The applicant herein is the 9^th accused in Crime No.15 of 2019 of the Agathi Police Station. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the Director and Adjudicating officer, Laccadive Minicoy & Amindivi Islands (Restrictions on Entry and Residence) Rules, 1967. Prosecution allegation is that a fishing vessel by name 'Dariya Doulath' with 8 crews on board were found within the limits of the territorial waters of Agathy without any valid entry permit. The offence alleged against the applicant are under Rule 3 r/w 14 of the Rules, 1967.

¶20

It appears that a detailed inspection was conducted after

¶21

seizure of the vehicle. It was revealed that the actual dimensions of the boat did not match with the dimensions given in the registration certificate. The colour of the boat was also changed to white to match the colour code of Lakshadweep fishing boats. From the vessel electronic gadgets like GPS equipment, echo sounder, wireless sets etc. were seized. It was also found that the accused had collected meat of protected species of sharks and dolphins, violating the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The

¶22

Bail Appl..No.8695 OF 2019

¶23

¶24

crew members were arrested on 20.09.2019 and after undergoing prolonged incarceration, they were released on bail by this Court. While they were interrogated they are alleged to have disclosed that the applicant is the registered owner of the boat and that it was at his instance that they had indulged in fishing in the waters of Lakshadweep.

¶25

Sri.T.Madhu,, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is aged about 77 years and is suffering from severe renal ailments. According to the learned counsel, the applicant, a native of Agati Island had applied for permission for purchasing a fishing boat in the year 2016. The funds for purchase was advanced by his friend Sri.Albert. He refers to Annexure-A4 and A5 to bring home his point that he had obtained appropriate permissions from the Directorate of Fisheries Lakshadweep. The vessel was then used for fishing on partnership basis. According to him, extensive damages were caused to the vessel in the Okhi cyclone and the vessel was damaged beyond repair. Thereafter, the boat was taken over by Albert, and he was carrying out fishing operations. It is submitted that the applicant had nothing to do with the alterations or change of colour.

¶26

Sri.Manu.S, the learned Standing Counsel has very seriously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the investigation is still in the early stages and investigation is still on to ascertain as to whether the boat was being used for nefarious activities. The learned counsel would contend that

¶27

Bail Appl..No.8695 OF 2019

¶28

¶29

the contention advanced by the learned counsel that Albert was managing the vehicle cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that unless custodial interrogation is conducted the investigation cannot be taken to its logical conclusion.

¶30

I have considered the submissions and I have perused the records, which are made available. I find from the records that the applicant is aged about 77 years. The medical records produced before this Court shows that he is suffering from end stage renal disease. I also find that the crew members have already been released on bail. No one has a case that the applicant herein was in the vessel. The entire records have been seized and substantial part of the investigation is over. I am of the view that by imposing stringent conditions, he can be granted an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶31

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:

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

Bail Appl..No.8695 OF 2019

¶35

¶36

to any police officer.

¶37

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

¶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

Pookoya.C v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pookoya.C v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

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

Vinod Kumar E Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar E Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla.a.R Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Limited, Vs Kerala Water Authority

Saharsh B. Vs State of Kerala

Sholilal.D.R., Vs State of Kerala