IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 3363 of 2011 ----------------------------- OR NO. 3/2011 OF PADUKKA FOREST STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ................ PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: -------------------------------- BENNY, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O CHAKKO, CHEKKIDANTHANAM HOUSE, KARAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KARULAI RANGE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 3363 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of May,2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in OR No.3/2011 of the Forest Range Office, Karulai. It was registered under Sections 27(1)(e) (iv) of Kerala Forest Act(Amendment, 1993) and under Sections 2(15), 2(16)(a), 2(25B), 2(36), 2(37), 9, 31, 32 and 51 of the Indian Wild Life Protection Act of 1972(Amedment 2003). This application is for pre-arrest bail. 2. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the materials collected in support of the allegations and the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witnesses and the apprehension of threat to the complainants are matters to be gone into while considering the application for bail. The materials available on record would prima facie show that there is merit in the complaint lodged by the complainant. 3. The prosecution contends that the accused are powerful persons who would interfere in the course of investigation and B.A. No. 3363 of 2011 -:2:- would also indulge in similar criminal activity and that they would tamper with evidence or witnesses and threaten or terrorise the witnesses and would indulge in similar such activities which would hamper smooth investigation. The contention raised by the prosecution is that there is likelihood of the accused fleeing to another country or making himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency also cannot be ignored. Considering all these aspects, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused at this stage. The application is dismissed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ttb