Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Section 72 in Kerala Forest Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in Kerala Forest Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Luca Beltrami vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2020
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the
accusations levelled against them. They have been
falsely implicated in the crime solely on the basis of the
alleged confession statement made by the 1st accused,
which is inadmissible in evidence, in view of the law
laid down by this Court in Luca Beltrami and Others
v. State of Kerala, [2020 (4) KHC 603] and
Prakashan v. State of Kerala [2023 (1) KHC 536].
Even otherwise, the only allegation made against the 1 st
accused is that he was found along with two other
persons in the forest area. There is no allegation that
the accused had stolen anything of the defacto
B.A.No.5412 of 2024 4
2024:KER:67510
complainant. The forest officials have a previous
animosity towards the petitioners and have falsely
implicated the accused 1 and 3 in several crimes. The
petitioners' custodial interrogation is not necessary and
no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the petitioners
may be granted an order of pre-arrest bail.
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 December, 2010
13. Viewed in the above background and
taking into account the statement filed by the
Investigating Officer that the petitioners have been
implicated on the strength of the confession statement
made by the 1st accused, I am prima facie of view that
the petitioners have made out exceptional grounds to
B.A.No.5412 of 2024 11
2024:KER:67510
invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 438 of the Code and have fulfilled the
parameters laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] and a plethora of
judgments warranting this Court to exercise its
discretionary powers. Hence, I am inclined to allow the
bail application, but subject to stringent conditions:-
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sushila Aggarwal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020
(ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the
powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate
the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries
on the information, if any, given by the
petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail
as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And
another [2020 (1) KHC 663].