High Court Kerala High Court

Nagarajan vs Forest Range Officer on 10 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Nagarajan vs Forest Range Officer on 10 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 1644 of 2009()


1. NAGARAJAN, S/O.VENKATACHALA PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :10/06/2009

 O R D E R
                        K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                     ---------------------------
                      B.A. No. 1644 of 2009
                  ------------------------------------
              Dated this the 10th day of June, 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 the

first accused in O.R. No.1/2009 of Tholpetty Forest Range.

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 26/02/2009 at

about 9 P.M., while the Section staff of Bavali Section,

Tholpetty Forest Range was on patrol duty, they found some

people carrying timber on their head. On seeing the officers,

the accused ran away leaving the timber. One Chinnappa @

Chinnu (A5) was apprehended. The investigation reveals that

the petitioner is the kingpin of the offence and that large

quantity of timber trees were cut and removed from the

reserve forest. It is also revealed that the petitioner is the

accused in two other Session Cases involving abkari offences.

It is also stated in the statement filed by the first respondent

that it is reliable learnt that the petitioner is involved in forest

B.A. No. 1644 /2009
2

offence in the nearby Karnataka Reserve Forest.

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

think that this is a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by

the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to get an order of

anticipatory bail.

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm