High CourtsSingle Bench

Shihabudheen K.K vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 KL CK 0016

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 48A, 51A(g) · Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 353, 379 · Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001 — Section 20, 23
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 3080 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 431 words

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

1.

This application seeking anticipatory bail is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “Code†for short) by the accused in

Crime No.55 of 2021 of the Areacode Police Station registered under Sections 379, 353 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 20 and 23 of Kerala Protection

of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001.

2.

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 27-2-2021 at 10.00 pm., a tipper lorry bearing Reg. No.KL-14-G 3945 was found transporting river

sand in clear violation of the provisions of Act 18 of 2001. The lorry was intercepted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Areacode Police Station. On

seeing the police personnel, about 15 persons are alleged to have assembled there and prevented the police from discharging their official duty.The

vehicle along with the river sand were seized and the crime was registered.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant asserted that the applicant is innocent. According to the learned counsel, the applicant has nothing

to do with the vehicle and he was roped in purely on the basis of suspicion.

4.

This submission is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor who refers to the case diary and submitted that investigation specifically

points to the complicity of the applicant.

5.

Act 18 of 2001 was enacted to curtail the indiscriminate and uncontrolled removal of sand from the rivers in the State of Kerala and to protect river

banks and river beds and their biophysical environment. Every citizen has a constitutional obligation to protect the environment and ecology under

Article 48A and Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India. While the nation is reeling under the trauma and loss of life caused by the COVID-19

pandemic, certain persons have been stealthily exploiting the natural resources with no regard to the ill effects that their acts would cause to mother

nature. Scores of crimes have been registered at the Tirur and neighbouring police stations . The seizure of the vehicle along with river sand seized

prima facie substantiates the allegations in no small measure. Investigation being in the early stages, I find no reason to grant an order of pre-arrest

bail to the applicant.

6.

The learned counsel prays that a direction be issued to enable the applicant to surrender before the jurisdictional court and seek regular bail. The

applicant shall surrender as expeditiously as possible and if an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on

its merits.

The application is dismissed