IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD MAY 2011 / 13TH VAISAKHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 3242 of 2011 -------------------------------------- [L.P.R.66/2009 IN O.R.NO.1/2001 IN CC.368/2002 OF CHARPA RANGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ----------------------------------------- AMIR ALI, S/O.MOHAMED ALI, AGED 37 YEARS, MANTHURUTHI HOUSE, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, VALLIVATTO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------- Bail Application No. 3242 of 2011 ------------------------------- DATED: 03-05-2011 O R D E R Petitioner who is the first accused in O.R. No. 1 of 2011 o of Charpa Range, Thrissur District for offences punishable under Sections 27 (1) (e) (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and Sec. 9 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner in C.C. 368 of 2011 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Chalakkudy, the case against the petitioner has been transferred to the Long Pending Case Register as L.P. Case No. 66 of 2009. Admittedly, non- bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate and files an application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of Bail A.No. 3242 of 2011 -:2:- preferably on the same day on which it is filed notwithstanding the pendency of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner and also after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner for his previous non-appearance. The petitioner can also highlight the fact that A2 and A3 have already been acquitted after trial. With the above observation this application is disposed of . Dated this the third day of May, 2011. Sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. Ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge