Shaji vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 8 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7465 of 2009()


1. SHAJI,S/O.GOPALAN,274,CANAL PURAMBOKKU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KAZHAKUTTOM
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.SANEER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :08/01/2009

 O R D E R
                          K.T.SANKARAN, J.
             ------------------------------------------------------
                       B.A. NO. 7465 OF 2009
             ------------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010


                                O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused

in Crime No.518 of 2009 of Kazhakuttom Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Section 4(1) read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals

Regulation and Development Act and Section 3 of the PDPP Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 3.10.2009, the police party

got secret information that illegal sand mining was going on from the

banks of Parvathi Puthanar Lake. The police party found sand being

removed using JCB and tipper lorries. The police party found that

sand was being taken from an area having a length of 20 metres,

breadth of 15 metres and depth of 10 metres. It was also found that

seven accasia trees were uprooted. The allegation is that the

petitioner and the second accused directed the other accused to

B.A. NO. 7465 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

remove sand from the area. The mahazar also shows that a

temporary road was constructed on the side of the compound of the

petitioner.

4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations

levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case

where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The

petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief in the case. The

allegation is that large scale removal of sand and destruction of

public property took place at the instance of the petitioner. In cases

of such nature, the discretionary relief should not be extended in

favour of the persons who are responsible for the offence.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/