IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 971 of 2008() ---------------------------- O.R.NO.3/8 OF MANNARAPARA FOREST STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------ JOHN BABY @ ROY, AGED 46, S/O.BABY MEENMUTTIYIL, CHEMBANARUVI P.O. PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENEE OONNITTAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY RANGER, FOREST STATION MANNARAPARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.971 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 4th accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered under Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act. The petitioner is said to be the 4th accused. Another person, one Stanley who claimed to be the 4th accused, had come to this Court for anticipatory bail in the same crime and by order dated 06.02.08 in B.A.No.650 of 2008, the said Stanley was granted anticipatory bail describing himself to the 4th accused. The petitioner prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to him also. He is not guilty of any offence, it is urged. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the 1st accused was badly in need of money. He allegedly approached the petitioner with a prayer that amount may be advanced to him as loan. The petitioner allegedly told the 1st accused that he did not have money. But if the petitioner/accused were prepared to associate with him to cut and remove a rosewood tree which had fallen in the reserve forest, they may together be able to raise money. Service of the 2nd accused was also requestioned. 1st and 2nd B.A.No.971 of 2008 2 accused along with the petitioner ensured that the fallen tree was cut and moved out of the forest. The petitioner had allegedly supplied the instrument for cutting the fallen tree. The rosewood was transported to the premises of a sawmill and it was there that the said Stanley reached to purchase the rosewood. 3. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. The said Stanley has already been granted anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may also be granted anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the mere fact that anticipatory bail was granted to the said Stanley who it is now said is the 3rd accused is no reason for the petitioner also to successfully claim anticipatory bail. The roles played by the petitioner and the said Charley are totally different. There are no circumstances in this case which would justify the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then B.A.No.971 of 2008 3 seek regular bail in the usual and ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. Anticipatory bail granted to the said Charley, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, cannot confer on the petitioner any right to claim anticipatory bail. Their alleged contumacious role in the perpetration of the crime are totally different. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 6. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-