IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5186 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2482/2008 IN O.R.NO.04/2008 OF OLAVAKKODE FOREST RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. JINTO, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 32 YEARS, ARPATHANATHU HOUSE, NOCHUPULY POST, PALAKKAD. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 19 YEARS, PAZHAMPULLY, PAYALAMKUNNU, DHONI, PALAKKAD. 3. KANNAN @ ANEESH, S/O.CHINNA, AGED 19 YRS EMS NAGAR, DHONI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, OLAVAKKODE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5186 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of Kerala Forest Act. According to prosecution, petitioners along with two others removed a venga tree which they had allegedly cut from a forest. The first and the second accused were arrested from the spot. But, the petitioners ran away. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the mahazar itself shows that the tree is a dry tree and that the petitioners were not arrested from the spot. They were implicated only on the basis of a confession statement and as per the confession statement, the tree was required for the purpose of construction of a house. But, venga tree is not used for construction of the house, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that in an offence of this nature, it may not be proper BA No.5186/08 2 to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners were found running away from the scene and they were identified by the Forest Officials. But, they could not be arrested. Petitioners will be required for identification. Therefore, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of allegations made, petitioners will be required for interrogation and it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl