IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3317 of 2008() ----------------------------- (O.R.No.5/2008 OF PONGANAMKAD FOREST STATION) .................... PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- GEORGE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, CHALIYELIL HOUSE, MANNUTHY DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SRI.K.C.PAULOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (REPRESENTING THE FOREST STATION OFFICER, PONGANAMKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3317 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Alleged offence is under Sections 27(1)(d)(e)(iii)&(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. According to the prosecution, on 21.4.2008 some Punna trees were cut and removed along with cashew trees from the properties comprised in Madakathara Village, Thrissur Taluk. It is stated to be a Forest land. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the possessory right over the properties from one Mallika and Remavathi by an agreement dated 14.5.2007 and it is sold out to Swaminathan on 1.4.2008 as evidenced by Annexure A. The petitioner is not in possession of the property now. Only on suspicion, petitioner is implicated in the offence. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that no documents were made available before the Investigating agency to show that the possession of property is parted with. According to him, as per information, petitioner is in possession BA 3317/08 2 of the property. He did not produce any agreement stating that the property is already transferred. Hence, investigation is required into the details regarding possession of the property. 5. This petition is opposed and it is submitted that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the Investigating officer for interrogation. It was pointed out that petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Thrissur and though the application was dismissed by the Sessions Court it is ordered as follows: “The petitioners if advised, may surrender before the appropriate court in which event their bail applications if filed before 12 noon will be entertained on the very same day by the court below and appropriate orders will be passed on the said date itself if the petitioner produces a copy of the order along with bail application.” 6. Petitioner is now willing to surrender before the Investigating officer and hence, the following order is passed: (i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and make himself available for interrogation within ten days from the date of this order. BA 3317/08 3 (ii) On surrender, if the petitioner is arrested, he shall be produced before the Magistrate court concerned in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of as above. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl