IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 153 of 2010 O.R.NO.6 OF 2009 OF KANNAVAM FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KANNUR PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ PRASAD K.JAMES, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KOLLARATH HOUSE, MANATHERI AMSOM DESOM THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, (FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANNAVAM), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 153 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 20.1.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the second accused in O.R. No.6/2009 of Kannavam Forest Range Office, Kannur. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) & (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 14/12/2009, the forest officials got information that teak trees and other valuable trees were being cut from the land leased to a scheduled tribe in the reserve forest. On inspection, it was found that nine teak trees and other valuable trees were cut from the property leased to Chandran, Usha and Kumba. Usha is the wife of the first accused. It is alleged that the first accused sold the trees to the second accused and accordingly, the trees were cut by the second accused. B.A. NO. 153 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. The first accused stated before the forest officials that the trees were sold for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- and that the first accused had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the second accused. The first accused stated that he was not aware that he could not sell the trees in the property in the possession of his wife. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in question was in the possession of the first accused and the family members for the last several years and the second accused purchased the trees, bona fide believing that the first accused was entitled to sell the trees. The second accused states that he was not aware that the trees belong to the Government. It is submitted that even going by the statement of the first accused, the second accused had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 27th and 28th January, 2010. B.A. NO. 153 OF 2010 :: 3 :: Post on 03/02/2010. 7. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with O.R.No. 6 of 2009 of Kannavam Forest Range Office, Kannur. The petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer. ” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 20.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 20.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NO. 153 OF 2010 :: 4 :: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/