IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7733 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.O.R.NO.5/08 OF AKAMALA FOREST STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT PETITIONERS/ 2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- 1. UDUMAN @ USMAN AGED 41 YEARS,S/O.UMMAR, KONDAYIPLAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.MULLOORKKARA, MULLOORKKARA DESOM, ATTOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ALI AGED 40 YRS, S/O. MOHAMMED, KOLOTHUKULAM HOUSE, P.O.MULLOORKKARA, MULLOORKKARA DESOM, ATTOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE DEPUTY RANGE OFFICER, AKAMALA FOREST STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7733 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 27(1)(d)(e)(iii) (IV) of the Kerala Forest Act. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused 2 and 3), along with first accused trespassed into a forest and cut and removed a 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. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are head load workers. They are not aware from where the articles were cut and removed, but they have acted only as head load workers loading the teakwood to the vehicle at the instance of first accused. It is also submitted that the owner of the mill, who is the fourth accused, was granted anticipatory bail. It is from his saw mill that the articles were seized. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that the prosecution has no consistent case. At the time when the BA7733/08 2 anticipatory bail application filed by the fourth accused was considered by the learned Sessions Judge, as per order dated 10.11.2008 in Crl.M.C.No.2027 of 2008 (Annexure A2). The prosecution had a case that the entire teak trees were recovered form the house of other accused and that the fourth accused is only the owner of the saw mill. Considering that fact, the fourth accused was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. However, while anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners was considered as per Annexure A3 order, the prosecution come forward with another contention before this Court. It was submitted that the wood was seized from the premises of the mill of one Sulaiman, where first accused had given the articles. In fact, Sulaiman is the first accused. The mill is owned not by first accused, but he is the fourth accused. The present case is that the fourth accused is the owner of the mill. In the light of the inconsistency, it is argued that the prosecution has no consistent case and hence, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. BA7733/08 3 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the inconsistency must have occurred because of the submissions made on the basis of the written instructions given, but as per the case diary, accused 1 to 3 had cut and removed the teak tree for the use of first accused and those were siezed from the saw mill run by fourth accused. This is what is stated in the remand report also relating to first accused. 6. On hearing both sides, in the light of the discrepancy pointed out in making submissions by the prosecution even if it occurred on the basis of written instructions, I find that it is only just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am constrained to pass an order in favour of petitioners. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned, on the following conditions: BA7733/08 4 i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and make themselves available for interrogation and co- operate with the investigation. ii). Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.