IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4602 of 2009() --------------------------------------- OR NO.31/2009 OF FOREST RANGE OFFICE, PUDUR, ATTAPPADI RANGE. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SIBY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PONNU JOSEPH, KAITHAKUZHY HOUSE, KARATHOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4602 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in O.R.No.31/2009 of Forest Range Office, Pudur, Attappadi Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 30/7/2009, on getting information that the petitioner has stored Sandalwood, the house of the petitioner was searched by the forest officials. No incriminating articles were discovered from the house. The petitioner was asked whether he has got possession of another house. He pointed out a nearby house. The petitioner stated that he would get the key of that house. He went inside his house and escaped through the back door. Later, the other house was searched by the forest officials and they seized a quantity of 32 Kgs of Sandalwood. That house belongs to one Maruthan. A statement was recorded from him. B.A. No. 4602 /2009 2 Maruthan stated he is residing five kilometers away from there and the house in question was given on oral lease to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in O.R. Nos.19/2006, 27/2006, 14/2008 and 23/2009 of Pudur Forest Station and O.R. Nos. 4/2007 and 8/2007 of Mukkali Forest Station. 5. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is involved in several cases of similar nature. The allegation is that he stored 32 Kgs. of Sandalwood. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm