Allowed

Manikandan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2022Bail Appl./215/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of forest trespass and causing fire, imposing stringent conditions including appearance for interrogation and cooperating with investigation, refuting the need for custodial inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed with conditions including surrender, execution of bond, appearance for interrogation, cooperation, no tampering, no witness inducement, and no other crimes.

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 215 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶7

1 MANIKANDAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. PAZHANISWAMI GOUNDER, MANIKANDAVILASAM HOUSE, P. O. AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 581.

¶8

2 RAMAN ,AGED 55 YEARS S/O. MASANAN, OORADAM OORU, P. O. KINNAKKARA, CHAVADIYUR, PUDUR, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 581. BY ADV P.JAYARAM

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

¶11

2 THE DEPUTY RANGER OF FOREST PUDUR FOREST STATION, P. O. PUDUR, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 581.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SR.PP - SMT. SEETHA S.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A. No. 215 of 2022 2

¶16

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶17

-------------------

¶18

B.A. No. 215 of 2022

¶19

---------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Application for anticipatory bail.

¶22

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 & 2 in O.R.No.11

¶23

of 2021 of Pudur Forest Station, Palakkad

¶24

registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(b), 27(1)(e)(I), 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of Kerala Forest Act.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is that, on 08-092021, the 2^nd petitioner herein trespassed to the Government forest vested in government forming part of VFC (Village Forest Committee) items 27-28 of

¶26

Aralikkonam Malavaram near Kinnakkara lying adjacent to Ooradam Ooru and razed

¶27

undergrowth/bushes of the forest and destroyed it by fire resulting a loss of Rs.2,000/- to the government/forest department. The 2^nd petitioner is

¶28

alleged to have committed trespass at the instance

¶29

B.A. No. 215 of 2022 3

¶30

of the 1^st petitioner.

¶31

The petitioners submit that they are totally innocent of the charges leveled against them and they are only the employees working under the owner

¶32

of the respective properties. The petitioners submit that the land in question is the property which is actually in possession of the private individuals and they have been granted purchase certificate by the Revenue Department and they have approached this Court by filing writ petitions, when there was obstructions from the Forest Officials to carry on agricultural activities in the respective properties and that they have obtained interim orders as is evident from Annexures -2 & 3.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶34

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶36

application for bail mainly contending that the petitioners trespassed into the government land and

¶37

caused loss of Rs.2,000/- to the government.

¶38

B.A. No. 215 of 2022 4

¶39

Petitioners would submit that the matters are pending before this Court as is evident from

¶40

Annexures-2 & 3 regarding the ownership of the

¶41

property and further that custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of investigation.

¶42

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and nature of the allegations, I feel that custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation. I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, but on stringent conditions. The above bail application is

¶43

allowed with the following directions. The petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 12.10.2022 and make

¶44

themselves available for interrogation on that day or on any other day or days as directed by the investigating officer. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in OR No.11 of 2021 of Pudur Forest Station, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day and be released on bail on the following conditions:

¶45

B.A. No. 215 of 2022 5

¶46

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶47

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in OR No.11/2021 of Pudur Forest Station as and when summoned to do so;

¶48

(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever so required;

¶49

(iv) The petitioners shall not tamper with any evidence;

¶50

(v) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶51

(vi) The petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶52

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated,

¶53

the Investigating Officer in OR No.11/2021 of Pudur Forest Station, may file an application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.

¶54

It is made clear that it is within the power of

¶55

B.A. No. 215 of 2022 6 the police to investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the information if any given by any of the petitioners even when the petitioners are on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC

¶56

663) .

¶57

sd/-

¶58

VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE

¶59

Manikandan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Madhu Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Vinay Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Haneefa Thalakkal Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Rashad P.K Vs State of Kerala