High Court Kerala High Court

K.E.James vs The State Of Kerala on 1 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.E.James vs The State Of Kerala on 1 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6713 of 2009()


1. K.E.JAMES, S/O.ELDHO, AGED 43 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :01/12/2009

 O R D E R
                      K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                   ---------------------------
                    B.A. No. 6713 of 2009
              ------------------------------------
           Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009

                           O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner

is accused No.1 in O.R. No.19/2009 of Chedalath Forest Range

Office, Sulthan Bathery.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under

Section 27(1)(e)(iii) & (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 13/9/2009, accused

Nos. 1 to 3 trespassed into the Government forest and cut

and removed a Rose wood tree. They transported the same in

a vehicle belonging to the 3rd accused. The timber was sold to

the 4th accused.

4. The petitioner moved for anticipatory bail before

the Sessions Court, Kalpetta. That application was dismissed

by the order dated 3rd November, 2009.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that there is no material to connect the petitioner

with the offence. After having heard the learned counsel for

B.A. No. 6713/2009
2

the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am not

inclined to accept the contention raised by the petitioner. Prima

facie, there are materials to indicate that the petitioner is

involved in the offene. The offence alleged is serious in nature.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not

think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm