Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AYYAPPAN, AGED 44 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


AYYAPPAN, AGED 44 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 2088 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 7207 (9 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 2088 of 2007()

1. AYYAPPAN, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. PAREEKANNI HYDERALI @ BAPPU,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :09/04/2007

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. Nos.2086 and 2088 OF 2007 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dated this the 9th day of April, 2007

O R D E R

Petitioner in B.A.No.2086/07 is the first accused and the petitioners in B.A.No.2088/07 are accused Nos.2 and 5 in O.R.No.5/07 of Karuvarakundu Forest Station for offences punishable under sections 27(1)(e)(iv)III of Kerala Forest Act and under section 2(16), 36, 9, 39 and 51 of the Kerala Wild Life Protection Act.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed these applications submitting, inter alia, that the first accused is an accused in another crime involving similar offences.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.3.07 at about 1.45 a.m. the petitioners had trespassed into the UFC item No.12 of Nellikkara Erankole Malavaram within the limits of Karuvarakundu Forest Station and had hunted and killed a Malan(Sambar Deer) and shared the meat among themselves.

4. It is too early to accept the contention of the first accused that he is afflicted with cancer and thereby deserving bail.

5. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer namely, the Forest Ranger, Kalikavu for BA.2086/07 & 2088/07 the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for regular bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the above said Investigating Officer on any day between 16.4.2007 and 18.4.2007 for the purpose of interrogation. The petitioners shall, thereafter, be produced on the same day before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, who shall consider and dispose of the application for regular bail, if any, filed by the petitioners. Such disposal shall preferably be on the same date on which the application is filed, bearing in mind the contention of the petitioners that accused Nos.2 and 5 had no serious role in the alleged offence. These applications are disposed of as above.

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

aks


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.