IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2757 of 2010() -------------------------------- CRIME NO. 168/2006 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- DAYANA ASHRAF @ ASHRAF, S/O. B.AHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT BALANADUKAM, MULIYAR VILLAGE, POST MULIYAR, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT/STATE : ------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADHUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2757 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first and second accused sold three jack fruit trees to the petitioner(A3) for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Petitioner cut and removed the trees. The property where the trees stood belongs to the Government and thereby the accused committed the above offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the jack fruit tree. The Village Officer reported that property is that of the Government and it does not belongs to the first and second accused. It is also submitted that even if, the entire allegations are accepted, petitioner will be liable only for offence under Section 10 of the Land Conservancy Act, for appropriating the alleged stolen articles. The punishment prescribed for the said act is only imprisonment for a period extending to six months etc. The said offence is bailable and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. B.A. No. 2757 / 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was a direction to petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and as directed by this court, he appeared. But, he did not co-operate with the investigation. Though the petitioner admitted that the trees were cut and removed, he did not furnish any details of the trees for the purpose of effecting recovery. It is also submitted that Section 10 of the Land Conservancy Act will not apply to this case, since it relates to “appropriation” of Government property, but offence under Section 379 is totally different. Section 379 involves taking away or removal of the property and not appropriation, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations made against petitioner, the fact that petitioner did not co-operate with the investigation for effecting recovery. I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Regarding the scope of Section 10 of the Land conservancy Act, it appears to me that prima facie the respondent has a strong and arguable case. B.A. No. 2757 / 2010 3 Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and for effecting the recovery and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. The incident happened as early as in 2006 and four years have elapsed after the commission of the offence. Petitioner is bound to surrender without delay and co-operate with the investigation. 1. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. 2. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest and proceed in accordance with law. 3. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter, since any delay in his surrender will adversely affect investigation. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln