Allowed

Rajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2021Bail Appl./3433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The case arose from a land dispute where the petitioner removed trees per Grama Panchayat orders, leading to a criminal complaint. The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted due to the civil nature of the underlying dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to surrender within ten days; bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Rajan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 3433 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAJAN AGED 65 YEARS PLACHALLAYIL HOUSE, VADAVANNUR P.O, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD PALAKKAD, PIN - 678504

¶8

BY ADVS. M.V.VIPINDAS SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678506

¶12

3 SHAHUL HAMEED AGED 40 YEARS PALLATH HOUSE, MUTHALAMADA, KOLLENGODE , PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678506

¶13

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SR.PP - SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 3433 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

05.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

BAIL APPL. NO. 3433 OF 2021

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.570 of 2020 of Kollengode police Station, Palakkad district. The said crime was registered on 09.10.2020 alleging offence punishable under Sections 447 and 379 of the IPC. Now, apprehending arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶24

Even though notice was served on the 3^rd

¶25

respondent, who is the defacto complainant in the crime, he has not turned up.

¶26

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

According to the learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner, he is now the owner in possession of about 35 cents of land, obtained from one Athar Rawther and from 1988 onwards

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO. 3433 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

he is in possession of the property. While so, on the complaint of one Unnikrishnan, the Annexure notice was received by him from the Vadavannur Grama Panchayath, directing him to cut and remove certain trees which have grown dangerously towards the residential building of the said Unnikrishnan. According to the counsel, in obedience to the said direction , he has cut and removed the trees and has been sold out to a native of Tamil Nadu . After two months, the defacto complainant wanted the premise that he is holding title over the property and approach

¶33

the Court with a private complaint which was forwarded to the police for investigation and thus caused the registration of the crime.

¶34

After hearing counsel on both sides, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted in the

¶35

case. A civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent which is evident from Annexure-III. The crime was registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by the 3^rd respondent before the Court. Whatever it may be, Annexure-II

¶36

BAIL APPL. NO. 3433 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

notice shows that, he was directed to cut and remove certain trees which is dangerously in the property, in his possession which caused threat to the life and property of Unnikrishnan. Whatever it may be, in the nature of the allegations, it does not seem that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted and he should co-operate with the investigation.

¶39

In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be at

¶40

liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and will make himself available for interrogation; in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees only)with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; he shall co-operate with the investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper the evidence and shall not involve in any crime during the period on bail.

¶41

I Make it clear that, observations with regard to the right etc have been stated only for the purpose of dealing with

¶42

BAIL APPL. NO. 3433 OF 2021

¶43

¶44

this application for bail.

¶45

Bail Application is allowed as above.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

RMV/05/07/2021

Rajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan 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

Faisal.R Vs Adoor Police Station

Sameer C Vs State of Kerala

Deepu v Vs State of Kerala

Jinu Saji Vs State of Kerala

Anil Lal Venu Vs State of Kerala

Vasantha Vs State of Kerala