Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.V.ABRAHAM, S/O. VARKEY versus THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.V.ABRAHAM, S/O. VARKEY v. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER - Bail Appl No. 387 of 2007(T) [2007] RD-KL 1489 (18 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 387 of 2007(T)

1. T.V.ABRAHAM, S/O. VARKEY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :18/01/2007

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

B.A.No.387 of 2007 Dt. JANUARY 18, 2007

ORDER

As per order dt. 10.1.2007 in B.A.No.35/2007 this court had directed the petitioner to surrender before the Forest Range Officer, Thamarassery on any day between 11.1.2007 and 15.1.2007 for the purpose of custodial interrogation etc. In due compliance of the said order the petitioner had surrendered before the office of the Forest Range Officer on 15.1.2007 at 11 a.m. Annexure-II communication from the Forester, Thamarassery to the petitioner says that since the Forest Range Officer was not in station on 15.1.2007 due to other official duties and he was expected to come only 16.1.2007, the Forester had with the oral permission of the D.F.O. directed the petitioner to surrender before the Forest Range Officer on 16.1.2007 between 11 a.m. and p.m.. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner surrendered before the Forest Range Officer as directed in Annexure-II letter, the Forest B.A.387/2007 2 Range Officer was unable to treat it as due compliance of the direction from this court. Hence this petition again seeking anticipatory bail.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Even though the petitioner had presented himself before the Forest Range Officer on 15.1.2007 at 11 a.m. which is well within the time-limit fixed by this court, since the said officer was not in office, the petitioner was unable to work out his remedies under the bail order passed by this court. It is not known as to how the D.F.O. could have permitted the petitioner to surrender before the Forest Range Officer on 16.1.2007 which is a date beyond the time-limit fixed by this court. At any rate, the Forest Range Officer could not have treated the presence of the petitioner on 16.1.2007 as one sanctioned by this court in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner had presented himself in the office of the Forest Range Officer on 15.1.2007 and it was due to the latter's absence in office that the petitioner was constrained to present himself on the next day. In any view of the matter, I am inclined to extend the time B.A.387/2007 3 granted to the petitioner for surrendering before the Forest Range Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to surrender before the Forests Range Officer on any day between 19.1.2007 and 24.1.2007 whereupon the other conditions in the bail order will apply.

(V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

mt/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.