Dismissed

Aji K.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Mar 2022Bail Appl./6316/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications for two revenue officials accused of aiding the unauthorized cutting and removal of reserved rosewood trees were dismissed. The court held that the petitioners' conduct amounted to criminal misconduct causing significant financial loss to the state, posing a risk of influencing witnesses. Consequently, pre-arrest bail was not granted.

What did the court decide?

Bail Applications Nos.6288 & 6316 of 2021 are dismissed; petitioners are not released on pre arrest bail.

Aji K.K Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 6288 OF 2021

¶4

(CRIME No.281 OF 2021 OF MEENANGADY POLICE STATION)

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

SINDHU K.O AGED 47 YEARS S/O MANOHARAN, KRP QUARTERS, NO.III/6, NEAR CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA NORTH.P.O, WAYANADU DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. P.K.VARGHESE BINDU MOHAN AMRUTHA K P P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

¶8

RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA

¶10

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

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.S.U.NAZAR ,SPL.G.P (Crl)

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6316/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A Nos.6288 & 6316 of 2021

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶19

WEDNESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1944

¶20

BAIL APPL. NO. 6316 OF 2021

¶21

(CRIME No.281 OF 2021 OF MEENANGADY POLICE STATION)

¶22

PETITIONER:

¶23

AJI K.K AGED 51 YEARS S/O.K.K.KUNHAN, RESIDING AT KARIVELIL HOUSE, KRISHNAGIRI P.O., MEENANGADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 591

¶24

BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI SHAHID AZEEZ RENJISH S MENON

¶25

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶26

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

¶27

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MEENANGADY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 591

¶28

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl. No.6288/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

B.A Nos.6288 & 6316 of 2021

¶30

¶31

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

¶32

Bail Application Nos.6288 & 6316 of 2021

¶33

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2022

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

These applications are for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶36

The petitioner in B.A No.6316 of 2021 is accused No.73,

¶37

and the petitioner in B.A No.6288 of 2021 is accused No.74 in Crime No.281 of 2021 of Meenangadi Police Station in Wayanad District, registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 212 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 10 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

¶38

The prosecution case is that, the accused cut and removed rosewood trees reserved to the Government from the land assigned to accused Nos.1 to 68 as per the Kerala Land Assignment Rules during the period November 2020 to January 2021, without the

¶39

B.A Nos.6288 & 6316 of 2021

¶40

¶41

knowledge or consent of the Revenue Department causing loss of Rs.8 crore to the Kerala Government. The petitioners, who were Village Officer and Special Village Officer of Muttil South Village, aided the accused by issuing certificates to transit the rosewood trees which were cut down unauthorisedly and they visited the properties from where the trees were cut along with the main accused persons so as to convince the property owners that the cutting of trees was with the knowledge and consent of the Revenue Department.

¶42

Learned Senior Counsel Sri.P. Vijaya Bhanu appearing for A74 and Sri.T. Madhu, learned counsel appearing for A73 submitted that, the petitioners are absolutely innocent of this crime. Accused Nos.1 to 68, who were assigned with lands under the provisions of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, cut and removed rosewood trees from their holding. But, as per Annexure A2 proceedings dated 11.03.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Kerala, the pattadars and other owners of the property were free to cut and remove all trees except sandalwood standing in their respective properties. Annexure A3 order was issued from the Revenue Department of

¶43

B.A Nos.6288 & 6316 of 2021

¶44

¶45

Government of Kerala stipulating that, for cutting and removing trees except sandalwood, permission of any authority is not required, and if any officer is raising objection, it will be treated as dereliction of duty and strict disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against such officers.

¶46

According to the petitioners, based on Annexures A2 and A3 Government Orders, certain persons approached the Village Officer, Muttil South Village, to remove the rosewood cut from their patta land. The petitioners inspected the property and submitted Annexures A4 and A5 reports before the Tahsildar stating that, rosewood trees were seen cut and stocked in the patta land of the applicants. Thereafter, the Village Officer sought clarification from the Tahsildar for future action as per Annexure A6 letter. The Tahsildar, Vythiri forwarded Annexure A4 and A5 proceedings of the Village Officer to the District Collector and the Collector in turn addressed the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram through Annexure A7 letter for getting further clarification regarding release of the rosewood trees cut down from the patta land. According to the petitioners, the certificate issued by

¶47

B.A Nos.6288 & 6316 of 2021 6

¶48

the Village Officer was not intended for transit of rosewood trees, and it was only to inform about the cutting down of rosewood trees from the patta land. So, according to them, they have done nothing illegal to aid the accused persons who unauthorisedly cut down rosewood trees from their patta land. They had taken all possible steps to prevent unlawful cutting and transit of reserved trees from the patta land. Investigation has progressed much and the main culprits were already arrested and released on bail. The petitioners were discharging their official duty and they have not committed any offences as alleged. So, they have to be released on pre arrest bail.

¶49

Learned Special Government Pleader Sri.S.U Nazar vehemently opposed the bail applications stating that, the petitioners, who are revenue officials, were supposed to protect the interest of Government, but instead, they assisted the main accused persons to cut and remove valuable rosewood trees standing in the patta land causing loss of Rs.8 crores to the Kerala Government. So, their action has no justification and if they are released on pre arrest bail, it will send a wrong message to the society. They acted hand in glove with the accused persons to make it appear before the public

¶50

B.A Nos.6288 & 6316 of 2021

¶51

¶52

that the accused persons were cutting and removing the rosewood trees with the knowledge and consent of the Revenue Department. So, they are not entitled for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

¶53

Now the point to be considered is, whether the petitioners are eligible to be released on pre arrest bail.

¶54

The Village Officer Sri.Aji K.K issued certificates on applications submitted by the main accused persons for the transit of rosewood trees cut down from their patta land. The reply submitted by the Village Officer to the charge memo issued by the District Collector, produced as Annexure-A22 in B.A.No.6316 of 2021, shows that, accused Nos.62, 63 and 69 and their men reached the Village Office and asked for certificates for producing before the Forest Range Office for the transit of rosewood trees cut down from their patta land. They threatened the office staff including lady staff, and out of fear, he issued the certificate. It is not a reasonable explanation expected from a responsible Village Officer. AnnexureA20 issued by the District Collector clearly shows that, the Village Officer was directed through the Tahsildar not to proceed further till a

¶55

B.A Nos.6288 & 6316 of 2021 8

¶56

clarification was received. Ignoring such directions and without waiting for the clarification, the Village Officer issued the certificates for facilitating the accused to get permission for transit, from the Forest Department. The Village Officer was suspended from service on initiating disciplinary proceedings against him.

¶57

The Special Village Officer Smt.Sindhu K.O was also actively involved in aiding the main accused persons to cut down the rosewood trees unauthorisedly from the patta land, as submitted by the Special Government Pleader. He produced copy of the 161 statements of the witnesses which will show that, the Special Village Officer Smt.Sindhu visited the patta land and measured the trees cut down, and she reached the property in the vehicle of accused Roji Augustine. The Village Officer Sri.Aji.K.K was also present along with them. The report of the Investigating Officer shows that, the Special Village Officer visited the properties to make it appear that accused Roji Augustine had obtained permission for cutting down rosewood trees from the Revenue Department. Moreover, the call details of the petitioners would show that, the Special Village Officer had contacted accused Roji Augustine 42 times during the period November 2020 to

¶58

B.A Nos.6288 & 6316 of 2021

¶59

¶60

January 2021. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu submitted that, only to remind the land owners to pay basic tax she had made the calls. But prosecution case is that she had contacted the main accused Sri. Roji Augustine 42 times, and it will definitely speak against her.

¶61

The petitioners, who are revenue officials, are guilty of criminal misconduct and by aiding the main accused, they caused loss of Rs.8 crore to the Government of Kerala. Since the investigation is in progress, if the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, it may send a wrong message to the society. Moreover they may influence witnesses misusing their official capacity. Considering all these facts, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on pre arrest bail.

¶62

The Bail Applications are accordingly dismissed.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶65

smp

Aji K.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aji K.K 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

Sharafudeen Vs the State of Kerala

V.A. Gopi Vs State of Kerala

Silesh V.S. Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Agron Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Drgu Inspector

Hanis Vs the State of Kerala

Sindhu K.O Vs State of Kerala