IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5590 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.919/2009 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/4TH AND 5TH ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- 1. SUMEESH SIVAN, S/O. SAMBA SIVAN, AGED 24 YEARS, ARACKALAMKUDY HOUSE, ADAVOOR.P.O. EDAVOORKAR, KOOVAPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. REJI, S/O. KUTTAPPAN K.K. AGED 25 YEARS, KARIKKATTU HOUSE, KOTHUPARAMBU EDAVOOR.P.O., KOVAPADY VILLAG, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE SRI.JOHN T.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 5591 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.5590 & 5591 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 ORDER These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.A.No.5590 of 2009 is filed by accused Nos.4 and 5 (Sumeesh Sivan and Reji) in Crime No.919 of 2009 of Chalakudy Police Station where the offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act. Bail Application No.5591 of 2009 is filed by the same persons, namely, Sumeesh Sivan and Reji in OR No.26 of 2009 of the Forest Range Office, Pariyaram, Thrissur. The petitioners had earlier filed B.A.No.4965 of 2009 for the same relief as is now claimed in B.A.No.5591 of 2009. That application was dismissed by me by the order dated 8th September 2009. 2. The case against the petitioners is that on 18.8.2009, while the Forest Officials were on patrol duty, they found five persons inside the reserve forest. On finding the Forest Officials approaching, they ran away. Three persons out of 5 were arrested. Their statement would disclose that the petitioners BA Nos.5590 & 5591/2009 2 were also involved in the offence. It is alleged that the petitioners and the other accused were found within the reserve forest area with an unlicensed gun. A search was conducted in the house of the first accused and on such search, an unlicensed gun, gun powder, headlights and other accessories were found. The allegation is that accused Nos.4 and 5 were carrying unlicensed gun within the forest area. 3. Crime No.919 of 2009 was registered by Chalakudy police under Section 25(1) (B) of the Arms Act on the basis of the petition filed by the Forest Range Officer before the police. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. The offences alleged against the petitioners in OR No.26 of 2009 are under Sections 2, 9, 39(d), 50 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act and Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. As stated earlier, the offence alleged against the petitioners in Crime No.919 of 2009 is under the Arms Act. When serious offences like these offences are alleged against the petitioners and there are enough materials, prima facie, to connect the petitioners with the offence, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. There is no reason why the BA Nos.5590 & 5591/2009 3 petitioners should be permitted to file a second application for anticipatory bail in OR No.26 of 2009. There is no change of circumstances warranting a fresh consideration of the request for anticipatory bail. In so far as the Bail Application in Crime No.919 of 2009 is concerned, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to any discretionary order in their favour under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the nature of the allegations levelled against them. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl