IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 632 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRMP.3364/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA. CRIME NO.238/2008 OF KARATHIKADU POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------- SAMUEL GEORGE, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE SAMUEL, KIZHAKKEATTATHU HOUSE, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN MR.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER & PETITIONERS ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RADAMONY, W/O.SATHEESAN, KAKKANATTU VADAKKATHIL, VETTIYAR MURI, VETTIYAR, MAVELIKKARA. 3. SATHEESAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KAKKANATTU VADAKKATHIL, VETTIYAR MURI, VETTIYAR, MAVELIKKARA. 4. PARUKUTTIAMMA, D/O.KUTTIYAMMA, KAKKANATTU VADAKKATHIL, VETTIYAR MURI, VETTIYAR, MAVELIKKARA. 5. MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.KUNCHU PILLAI, KURATTIVADAKKATHIL, VETTIYAR MURI, VETTIYAR, MAVELIKKARA. 6. SURESH, AGED 40 YEARS, IDAYANVELILVEEDU, VETTIYAR MURI, VETTIYAR, MAVELIKKARA. 7. PRASAD, AGED 45 YEARS, ANANDA BHAVANAM, VETTIYAR MURI, VETTIYAR, MAVELIKKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 632 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure III order granting anticipatory bail to the respondents 2 to 7 in Crime No. 238/2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara had granted anticipatory bail and also had given further directions. The offence alleged is that of a criminal trespass after forming unlawful assembly and cutting down valuable trees and taking it away from the premises and thereby serious crime is said to have been committed by the accused in the case. A perusal of the order would reveal that there is some dispute between the parties with respect to the ownership of the property which will take necessarily the trees that had been cut and removed also. In such circumstances it is desirable that the extra ordinary jurisdiction of granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 can be invoked. It is desirable that observations with respect to the merits of the case are not made. When the court is satisfied that it is a case where bail under Section 438 Crl.M.C.No. 632/2009 -2- has to be granted for the reason that there is no fear of absconding or running away of accused and they can be directed to co-operate with the investigation. Therefore I am not inclined to interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the court under Section 438 in granting anticipatory bail. If there are some objections or difficulties for the investigating agency with respect to the other conditions it is for them to move the very same court for variations or cancellation which can be done in accordance with law. Any observations made with respect to the merits of the case in the order of the learned Sessions Judge shall not be the guiding factor in deciding the case. The Crl.M.C is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm