Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Don vs State of Kerala

DON vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 17, 2021
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1622039

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./2729/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

DON

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....and therefore he seeks pre-arrest bail.4. heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned public prosecutor.5. the applicant is not entitled to trespass into theforest land particularly with a vehicle. he states that he is residing nearby and he has the right to use the forest pathway. admittedly, he is not a tribal entitled to use the pathway through the forest area. the only allegation is that of trespass and there are no specific allegations of the applicant cutting and removing or causing any damage to the forest produce.6. the applicant has no criminal antecedents and i find that the custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary, as there is nothing to be recovered.7. the application is allowed. the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within a month and in the event of his arrest he shall be released on bail on the bail appl.no.2729 of 2021 4execution of a bond for rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and subject to the condition under section 438 (2) of cr.pc. sd/- ashok menon judge ska

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 2729 OF 2021 OR.NO.1/2020 OF PERUMUZHY FOREST STATION, PENDING BEFORE THE JFMC-II, KOTHAMANGALAM

PETITIONER: DON, S/O.JOY, AGED 26 YEARS, KALLARACKAL HOUSE, MLAWANA KARA, POOYAMKUTTY P.O, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS MATHEW DEVASSI RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA THROUGH REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031. BY ADVS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Appl.No.2729 OF 2021 2

ORDER

Dated this the 17th day of May 2021 APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL The applicant is the 1st accused in OR.No.1/2020 of Perumuzhy Forest Station, for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 12.10.2020,

while the forest officials were on patrol duty inside the forest area, they saw the applicant and 3 others driving a vehicle along the Warriam-Mlawana road at Ooduthooky trespassing into a forest area where the applicant is not entitled to enter with his vehicle. Thus the crime was registered. Anticipating that they would proceed against the applicant, he also allegedly filed a complaint against the forest officials alleging that they manhandled and abused him. After investigation, the police referred the case stating that the allegation was false. The applicant also approached this court to quash the proceedings in this forest crime, but that too was dismissed.

Bail Appl.No.2729 OF 2021 3

3. The applicant state that he is innocent and the

allegations are not true. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and therefore he seeks pre-arrest bail.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The applicant is not entitled to trespass into the

forest land particularly with a vehicle. He states that he is residing nearby and he has the right to use the forest pathway. Admittedly, he is not a tribal entitled to use the pathway through the forest area. The only allegation is that of trespass and there are no specific allegations of the applicant cutting and removing or causing any damage to the forest produce.

6. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and I find that the custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary, as there is nothing to be recovered.

7. The application is allowed. The applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a month and in the event of his arrest he shall be released on bail on the Bail Appl.No.2729 OF 2021 4

execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and subject to the condition under Section 438 (2) of Cr.PC. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE ska

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial