IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1301 of 2008(K) ------------------------------ CRMP.336/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA O.R.NO.3/2008 OF MANANTHAVADY FOREST RANGE .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. K.T.SANKARANKUTTY,AGED 67 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, SANTHA SADANAM, KOOLIVAYAL, CHERUKATTOOR VILLAGE & POST MANANTHAVADY TALUK (RESIDENT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF F.R.O.,MANATHAVARY) 2. O.M.JOOHNSON, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.MATHEW, OLIKKAL POST, AMBAYATHODE POST, KOTTIYOOR VILLAGE KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF F.R.O,KOTTIYOOR) BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER MANANTHAVARY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1301 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 5 and 10. Altogether there are 10 accused persons. The crux of the allegations is that Rosewood timber logs illegally removed from the forest were dealt with by the accused persons, 10 in number. Accused 1 to 3 were arrested at the spot. Accused 4 and 5 allegedly ran away when the forest officials reached the scene of the crime. The 10th accused is a retired forest official. The contraband Rosewood logs were allegedly kept in a shed belonging to the 10th accused, the 1st petitioner. He had wanted the other accused to take it away immediately. When the logs were being taken away in a lorry, the same was intercepted. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners first of all submits that the 5th accused/2nd petitioner has absolutely no contumacious role. The allegation that he ran away is incorrect. At any rate, the 2nd petitioner/5th accused can only be treated as a bona fide purchaser of the Rosewood logs. He had no contumacious or culpable intention or knowledge. He may be granted anticipatory bail. B.A.No.1301 of 2008 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no merit in the contention that the 5th accused was blissfully ignorant that the contraband articles were being illegally removed from the forest. At any rate, the contentions urged by him cannot entitle him to the issue of directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I do not find any features in this case which can justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion in favour of the 5th accused/2nd petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail can only be rejected. 5. Coming to the claim of the 1st petitioner/10th accused, the only allegation is that the contraband articles which were removed from the forest were kept in a shed belonging to the 1st petitioner/10th accused by some other accused. When the 1st petitioner/10th accused came to know that Rosewood logs were being stocked in his building, he had insisted that the same be removed. The seizure was while it was being removed. There is no specific allegation that the 10th accused shared any common intention with those who felled the trees and removed the logs. B.A.No.1301 of 2008 3 There is no contention that he had any contumacious interest in the transactions in the Rosewood logs. On the allegations raised, I am satisfied that the 1st petitioner/10th accused is entitled for issue of directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application in so far as it relates to the 1st petitioner/10th accused. 7. In the result, this Bail Application is, allowed in part. a) The petition in so far as it relates to the 2nd petitioner/5th accused is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies 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. b) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the 1st petitioner/10th accused. i) The 1st petitioner/10th accused shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 17.03.2008. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; B.A.No.1301 of 2008 4 ii) The 1st petitioner/10th accused shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on 18.03.2008 and 19.03.2008 and thereafter between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of one month. Subsequently the 1st petitioner/10th accused shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; iii) If the 1st petitioner/10th accused does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the 1st petitioner/10th accused and deal with him in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the 1st petitioner/10th accused were arrested prior to his surrender on 17.03.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 17.03.08. B.A.No.1301 of 2008 5 (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-