IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6880 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.O.R.NO.5/2008 OF AKAMALA FOREST STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3 : -------------------------------------------- 1. UDUMMU, AGE 40 YEARS, S/O.UMMER CITU HEAD LOAD WORKER, RESIDING AT KONDAYIKKAL HOUSE, MULLURKARA DESOM, ATTOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,TRICHUR DIST. 2. ALI, AGE 40 YEARS, S/O.MANI CITU HEAD LOAD WORKER, RESIDING AT KONDAYIKKAL HOUSE, MULLURKARA DESOM, ATTOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,TRICHUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY RANGER AKAMALA, AKAMALA FOREST STATION (CRIME O.R. NO. 5/2008) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No. 6880 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 27(1) (b) (e) III, IV of Kerala Forest Act, 1961. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused nos.2 and 3) along with first accused trespassed into a forest and cut and removed a dry teak tree, using a saw and made it into planks and transported the same. The articles were seized from the premises of a saw mill of Sulaiman 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are head load workers. They were not aware that the place from where the articles were removed is a reserved forest or that it is an offence to remove the article from the place of occurrence. They have acted only as head load workers in loading the teak wood to the vehicle, at the instance of first accused. It is also submitted that the owner of the mill is fourth accused and he was granted anticipatory bail. B.A.6880 of 2008 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners cannot be exonerated from their liability only because they are head load workers. The contraband article was cut and removed from a forest and their ignorance cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the wood was seized from the premises of the mill of one Sulaiman, where first accused had given the articles. It is only on the arrest of first accused, the involvement of accused nos.2 and 3 was revealed. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The facts stated by learned counsel for petitioner cannot be a ground for invoking provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner will be required for interrogation by the forest officials and they have to co-operate with the investigation. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac