IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1626 of 2008() ----------------------------- (O.R.NO.7/08 OF FOREST RANGE OFFICE, ANCHAL) : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 3 ---------------------------------------------- 1. PRAHALADAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, MALU VILASOM, EZHAMKULAM, THINKALKKARIKOM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. S.BINUKUMAR, S/O. SOMAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU, MARTHANDOM KARA, P.O.EZHAMKULAM, THINKALKKARIKOM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 3. JOJO THOMAS, S/O. KUTTAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU, MARTHANDOM KARA, P.O.EZHAMKULAM, THINKALKKARIKOM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, RANGE OFFICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1626 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. There are three petitioners. The 1st petitioner is already arrayed as the 1st accused in a crime registered under the Kerala Forest Act. The crux of the allegations is that 3 persons including the 1st petitioner/accused had trespassed into the reserve forest and were engaged in the process of removing river sand from the reserve forest. The 1st petitioner was known to be detecting official and he has been arrayed as the 1st accused. Petitioners 2 and 3 have not been arrayed as accused so far. Investigation is in progress. The 1st accused has to be arrested and interrogated. If necessary petitioners 2 and 3 will also have to be arrayed as accused and arrested. In these circumstances it is prayed that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may not be issued in favour of the petitioners, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as against petitioners 2 and 3, no worthwhile allegations are raised now. It is further submitted that the area in question is not a B.A.No.1626 of 2008 2 reserve forest. It is further submitted that, at any rate, removal of the sand had not taken place as alleged. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the area is notified to be a reserve forest. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the river sand had been removed from the riverbed and that had been loaded in the vehicle which had trespassed into the forest. That was taken into the forest by the 1st petitioner who has been identified as the 1st accused. The needle of suspicion is pointed at petitioners 2 and 3 though they have not been formally arrayed as accused yet. It is not necessary, at any rate, to permit petitioners 2 and 3 to be armed with an order of anticipatory bail. The 1st petitioner does not, at any rate, deserve to be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. There are satisfactory materials collected against the 1st petitioner. There are strong circumstances to suspect the complicity of petitioners 2 and 3. I find merit in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the 1st petitioner does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. Petitioners 2 and 3, who have not by now been arrayed as accused, also do not deserve to be armed with an B.A.No.1626 of 2008 3 order of anticipatory bail now. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and apply 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/-