IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7465 of 2009 CRIME NO.518 OF 2009 OF KAZHAKUTTOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/A2 ------------------------ SHAJI,S/O.GOPALAN,274,CANAL PURAMBOKKU, 12,MENAMKULAM,WEST,KADINAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SANEER RESPONDENT: --------------- THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KAZHAKUTTOM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KRALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7465 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.518 of 2009 of Kazhakuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 4(1) read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 3.10.2009, the police party got secret information that illegal sand mining was going on from the banks of Parvathi Puthanar Lake. The police party found sand being removed using JCB and tipper lorries. The police party found that sand was being taken from an area having a length of 20 metres, breadth of 15 metres and depth of 10 metres. It was also found that seven accasia trees were uprooted. The allegation is that the petitioner and the second accused directed the other accused to B.A. NO. 7465 OF 2009 :: 2 :: remove sand from the area. The mahazar also shows that a temporary road was constructed on the side of the compound of the petitioner. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief in the case. The allegation is that large scale removal of sand and destruction of public property took place at the instance of the petitioner. In cases of such nature, the discretionary relief should not be extended in favour of the persons who are responsible for the offence. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/