IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6985 of 2009 O.R.NO.6 OF 2005 OF VANIYAMPUZHA FOREST STATION APPLICANT 3R ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- SUNILKUMAR @ KUNHUTTAN S/O.KARUPPAN, KODOAKKADAN HOUSE, VELIYAMTHODE, CHANTHAKUNNU PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING VANIYAMPUZHA FOREST OFFICER PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6985 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 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 third accused in O.R.No.6 of 2005 of Vaniyampuzha Forest Station, Malappuram District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons trespassed into the teak plantation belonging to the Government and cut and removed two teak trees. 4. The offence is a serious offence. In a case of this nature, I do not think, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To my mind, the petitioner is not entitled to any B.A. NO. 6985 OF 2009 :: 2 :: discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/