IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4387 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.183/2009 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- P.K.SULAIMAN, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.KUTTY RAWTHER, PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, ALAPRA PO, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4387 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.183 of 2009 of Keezhvaipur Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the accused persons is under Section 511 of 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons attempted to commit theft of two teak trees standing in the Government Purampoke, causing loss to the Government. On 10.4.2009, at 8 P.M., the Village Officer came to the scene of occurrence and prevented the removal of the trees. The accused persons were trying to remove the trees in the lorry belonging to the third accused. The Village Officer reported the matter to the police and also to the higher authorities. The District Collector also sent communication for taking appropriate action in the matter. Accordingly, the crime was registered for the offence mentioned above. It is mentioned that the value of the trees would come to Rs.1,20,000/-. BA No.4387/2009 2 4. The allegation is that from the Government property, teak trees were attempted to be stolen. The lorry belonging to the petitioner was found at the scene of occurrence. The allegation is that the petitioner is also involved in the offence knowing that an offence was being committed. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. It is seen from the case diary that only an offence under Section 511 of Section 379 is alleged to have been committed. The CD file discloses that the teak trees were cut and what was left was only transportation. If so, the offence under Section 379 would be attracted. The moment the trees were severed, the offence under Section 379 was committed. The investigating officer shall bestow his attention to the relevant facts and take appropriate action in the matter. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl