Maneksha v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/8TH ASWINA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 5070 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 9/2015 OF ARIENKAVU FOREST RANGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT --------------------- PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :
-------------------------------------- MANEKSHA S/O. SALIM, RESIDING NISHAD MANZIL, NEAR BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.I.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
-------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-628231.
2. THE RANGE OFFICER FOREST RANGE OFFICE, ARYANKAVU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2015 ALONG WITH BA 5061/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------ Bail Appl. No.5061 and 5070 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September 2015
O R D E R
Bail applications filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner in both the bail applications are the same. He is involved in O.R. No.1 of 2015 and O.R. No.9 of 2015 of the Aryankavu Forest Range registered for the offences punishable under Secs.27(1)(e)(iii)(w), 47A, 47B, 47C, 47H, 52 and 61 of the Kerala Forest Act 1961 and Amendment Act 2010. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, found engaged in transporting sandal wood in contravention of the law.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Pubic Prosecutor.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that when the Police officers tried to stop the vehicle, it went and hit on a lorry and the petitioner ran away. The accused persons who could be arrested gave statement indicating the role played by the petitioner in the
Bail Appl. No.5061 and 5070 of 2015 2 offences.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the incident and he is only the owner of the vehicle.
All these contentions do not derive support from the materials in the case diary. Considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
In the result, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE / True Copy / NS/30/09/2015 P.A. To Judge