IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5948 of 2007(A)
1. ANILKUMAR,S/O. THANKAPPAN,
... Petitioner
2. BAIJU,S/O. RAJAPPAN,
3. MANOJ, KEERIKUNNEL HOUSE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.5948 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of October 2007
O R D E R
Second application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 2,3 and 9. They face allegations for offences punishable
under the Kerala Forest Act. The crux of the allegations is that they
trespassed into the reserve forest and cut and removed teak trees
standing in such reserve forest. The alleged incident took place some
time in September 2006.
2. The earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by the
petitioners along with some other accused was dismissed by another
Bench of this Court on 4/12/2006 with observations that the
petitioner can surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek
regular bail within a period of two weeks. The petitioners admittedly
have not so far surrendered before the learned Magistrate. This is a
second application for anticipatory bail and it is incumbent on the
petitioners to show change of circumstances justifying a fresh
consideration of their bail application.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that elapse
of time and the subsequent investigation are reasons which according
to him justify a fresh consideration of the application for anticipatory
bail. Elapse of time by itself would be irrelevant. The learned counsel
B.A.No.5948/07 2
for the petitioners submits that further investigation has revealed
that the petitioners have no contumacious or culpable role. The
learned Public Prosecutor on the contrary asserts that further
investigation conducted has only confirmed the complicity of the
petitioners and there is absolutely no circumstances to justify a fresh
consideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail which already stands
rejected by order dated 4/12/2006.
4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find
merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable
to find any change in circumstance which can justify a fresh
consideration of the bail application, which stands rejected as per
earlier order dated 4/12/2006, on merits.
5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if
the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the
learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior
notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance
with law and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.5948/07 3
B.A.No.5948/07 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007