IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 343 of 2010() ---------------------------- ANCHAL FOREST RANGE OFFICE OR NO.28/09 PETITIONER: IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- JOHNKUTTY, S/O.ABRAHAM, THADATHIL PUTHEN VEETTIL, VILAKKUPARA, MUZHATHANGU, AYIRANELLOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.343 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 ORDER When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 9.2.2010, the following order was passed: “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.28 of 2009 of Anchal Forest Range, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 27(i)(d), (e), (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 11.11.2009, the petitioner along with accused Nos.2 and 3 tried to cut an Anjili tree from the forest land. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner owns land adjacent to the forest land. There are Anjili trees standing on the boundary of his property. The forest people are claiming ownership over those Anjili trees. There is a boundary dispute and a dispute regarding the ownership of the Anjili trees. According to the petitioner, this case is BA No.343/2010 2 foisted against him to see that the petitioner does not put forward a claim for ownership of the Anjili trees. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 16th and 17th February, 2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. Post on 23rd February, 2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with O.R. No.28 of 2009 of Anchal Forest Range, Kollam District.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction contained in the order dated 9.2.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact BA No.343/2010 3 that the direction in the order dated 9.2.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl