High Court Kerala High Court

Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4197 of 2009(A)


1. ANILKUMAR, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SAJAYAN, S/O.RAVANAN,
3. PRAKASH, S/O.MADHAVAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :12/08/2009

 O R D E R
                          K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                       ---------------------------
                       B.A. No. 4197 of 2009
                  ------------------------------------
              Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009

                              O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused

Nos.1 to 3 in O.R. No.16/2008 of Aryankavu Forest Range.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

Sections 27 (1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act.

3. On 28.10.2008, the Forest Officials found that two teak

trees were cut from Rajathottam Mala in Thalappara section in

Aryankavu Range. The teak trees were found cut into 10 pieces.

The Forest Officials removed the timber and a mahazar was

prepared. No information could be gathered as to the persons who

are involved in the offence. The Forest Officials detected the

offence on getting secret information.

4. I have perused the Case Diary. The Case Diary only

mentions that as per the secret information, the Investigating

Officer suspects involvement of 5 persons including the petitioners

herein. It is also revealed that the accused persons were keeping

themselves away from the places for quite some time.

B.A. No. 4197 of 2009 2

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

petitioners are innocent and that they are not involved in any

offence. It is also pointed out that there is no material to arrive

at a conclusion that the petitioners are involved in the offence.

For the purpose of disposal of this Bail Application, it is not

necessary to arrive at any finding on these aspects.

6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the offence and the materials already on

record, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to

the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the

arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station

shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/-

each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the

satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following

conditions:

A) The petitioners shall report before the
investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M.
on all Mondays and Thursdays, till the final report
is filed or until further orders;

B) The petitioners shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and when
required;

B.A. No. 4197 of 2009 3

C) The petitioners shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.

D) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or
indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

E) In case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be
cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

ln

The words “The learned Public Prosecutor” occurring

in the first sentence in paragraph 5 of the final order dated

12.08.2009 in B.A.4197/2009 are substituted by the words “The

learned counsel for the petitioners” as per order dated

10.03.2010 in B.A. 4197/2009.

sd/-

Registrar Judicial