High Court Kerala High Court

Jinto vs State Of Kerala on 2 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Jinto vs State Of Kerala on 2 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5186 of 2008()


1. JINTO, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 32 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SANTHOSH, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 19 YEARS,
3. KANNAN @ ANEESH, S/O.CHINNA, AGED 19 YRS

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY FOREST RANGE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE MATHEW

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :02/09/2008

 O R D E R
                               K.HEMA, J.
               -------------------------------------------------------
                 Bail Application No.5186 of 2008
               -------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008



                                  O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii)

and (iv) of Kerala Forest Act. According to prosecution,

petitioners along with two others removed a venga tree which

they had allegedly cut from a forest. The first and the second

accused were arrested from the spot. But, the petitioners ran

away.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

mahazar itself shows that the tree is a dry tree and that the

petitioners were not arrested from the spot. They were

implicated only on the basis of a confession statement and as per

the confession statement, the tree was required for the purpose

of construction of a house. But, venga tree is not used for

construction of the house, it is submitted.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor

submitted that in an offence of this nature, it may not be proper

BA No.5186/08 2

to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners were found running away

from the scene and they were identified by the Forest Officials.

But, they could not be arrested. Petitioners will be required for

identification. Therefore, it may not be proper to grant

anticipatory bail.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the

nature of allegations made, petitioners will be required for

interrogation and it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail.

The petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

csl