IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7058 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 2937/08 IN OS.3/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA O.R.NO.29/08 OF TALIPARAMBA FOREST RANGE OFFICE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------- 1. C.C. JOSEPH, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. CHANDI, CHUNAYANMAKKAL HOUSE, KUDIYANMALA, NADUVIL AMSOM, POTTANPLAVU P.O., KANNUR. 2. MATHAI, AGED 73 YEARS,S/O. CHANDY, CHUNAYANMAKKAL HOUSE,KUDIYANMALA, NADUVIL AMSOM, POTTANPLAVU P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, (FOREST RANGE OFFICE, TALIPARAMBA FOREST RANGE, O.R.29/2008 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7058 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv), 62(d) and 84 of the Forest Act read with Section 4 of the Kerala Private Forest Vesting and Assignment Act, 1971. According to prosecution, petitioners have trespassed into Government forest and demolished boundary marks (Jandas) and thereby committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is a longstanding civil dispute between Forest Department and petitioners in respect of the property belonging to petitioner. Right from the year 1956, petitioners were in possession of certain extent of land and those were cultivated also. Purchase certificate was issued to petitioners, but behind the back of petitioners, the Forest Department got it cancelled. But, later, on coming to know about such cancellation, petitioners challenged the order of cancellation before the appellate authority and the impugned order was set aside. BA.7058/08 2 4. It is also submitted that the civil suit is pending between the parties and petitioners have obtained a temporary order of injunction restraining the Forest Officials from trespassing into petitioner's property. A Commission was taken out and a report was also obtained and the court had passed an order to maintain status quo, with reference to the report made by the Commissioner. Petitioners have not committed anything thereafter. But, the forest officials acted in violation of the order passed and hence, they apprehended that some action would be taken against them by petitioners for contempt. Therefore, respondents lodged a criminal complaint against petitioners as a shield to the apprehended action. If petitioners are arrested and detained in prison on these allegations, it will result in great injustice, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations, petitioners have removed the boundary marks and committed offences under the various provisions of the Act and hence, a crime was registered against petitioners. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it is only just and proper that anticipatory bail is granted to petitioners on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: BA.7058/08 3 Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned and they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. ii) Petitioners shall act in accordance with the directions issued by the Munsiff's Court concerned from time to time. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.