BIJOY KORATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in B.A. 1079/2012 are accused 1, 2 and 5 and petitioners in B.A. 1117/2012 are accused 4 and 6 in Crime No. 277/2012 of Kalamassery police station, registered for the offences under Rule 29(a) of Kerala Protection of River Bank & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2002 read with Section 23 of Kerala Protection of River Bank & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001 and Sections 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners were arrested on 12/2/2012 and have been in custody since then. Learned Senior counsel appearing for accused 1, 2 and 5 and Learned Counsel appearing for accused 4 and 6 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the case diary.

(2.) LEARNED Senior counsel and Learned Counsel appearing for accused 4 and 6 argued that these petitioners were not arrested on the date when the lorry and the sand were seized and they were not travelling along with that lorry, but were arrested two days thereafter and they have not used the pass, even if it is forged and in such circumstances, petitioners may not be detained further. It is pointed out that apart from the confession statement, there is no legal evidence to connect the petitioners with any of the offences alleged and in such circumstances, petitioners be released on bail and they are prepared to abide by any condition. On perusing the case diary, I find that petitioners cannot be granted bail at this stage, as it would adversely affect the investigation. Considering the nature of the offences, proper investigation is warranted. Even if only the confession statement is available at present, if petitioners are released on bail, it would adversely affect the proper investigation as petitioners may intimidate, influence or threaten the witnesses. In such circumstances, petitioners cannot be released on bail at the early stage of investigation. Petitions are dismissed.