IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4465 of 2011() -------------------------------- O.R. NO. 1/2011 of CHITTAR FOREST STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. SANAL @ SANTHOSH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, KOIKKALETHU HOUSE, NEELIPILAVU, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SURESH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.C.A.NANU, KONNAPPARA PUTHENVEEDU, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. VISHWAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.PODIYAN, KOIKKALETHU HOUSE, NEELIPILAVU, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, CHANDIRUTHIL HOUSE, NEELIPILAVU, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/STATE:- --------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY FOREST RANGER, CHITTAR FOREST STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 690 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... Bail Application No. 4465 of 2011 .......................................... Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioners who are the accused in O.R. No. 1 of 2011 of Chittar Forest Station, Pathanamthitta for an offence punishable under Section 27(1) e(iii)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act r/w Kerala Forest Act (Preservation, reproduction & disposal of trees and timber belonging to Govt. but grown in land occupation of private persons) Rule 1975, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that petitioners 2 to 4 are only suspects in the above crime and they have not so far been arrayed as accused in the above case. If so, the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by petitioners 2 to 4 is unfounded and this petition so far as it relates to petitioners 2 to 4 is closed. In case petitioners 2 to 4 are required to be interrogated again the police shall do so after giving them notice under Sec. 160 Cr.P.C. B.A. No. 4465/2011 : 2: 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 112 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others - (2011) 1 SCC 694 , I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioner. Accordingly, the first petitioner (A2) is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 24.06.2011 or on 25.06.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioner is arrested by the Investigating Officer before interrogation, the petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case the interrogation of the first petitioner is without arresting him, the petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or the next day and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the first petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider B.A. No. 4465/2011 : 3: and dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. In case the first petitioner while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has deprived the investigating officer sufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall complete the interrogation even if it is beyond the time limit fixed as above and submit a report to that effect to the Magistrate or the Court concerned. Likewise, the Magistrate or the Court also will not be bound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient time was not available after the production or appearance of the petitioner. This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011. sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE rv //True Copy// P.A to Judge. B.A. No. 4465/2011 : 4: