IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7291 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- O.R.2/2008 OF BAVOOR FOREST RANGE OFFICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. ................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------- K. SHAMEER, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.KHADER, SAJITHA MANZIL, SIVAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, BAVOOR, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 7295 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos.7291 & 7295 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner herein, who is accused No.10 in O.R. No.2/2008 of Bavoor Forest Range, Wayanad and accused No.12 in O.R. No.12/2008 of Chethalath Forest Range, has filed these applications for anticipatory bail. B.A. No.7291/2009 relates to O.R. No.2/2008, while B.A. No.7295/2009 relates to O.R. No.12/2008 referred to above. 2. The offence alleged in both these cases is under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) & (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. 3. The allegation in O.R. No.2/2008 is that on 14/2/2008, accused Nos. 1 to 10 cut and removed two teak trees from Pathiri Reserve Forest, as instructed by the petitioner herein. The allegation in O.R No. 12/2008 is that on 14/6/2008, accused Nos.1 to 10 cut and removed two teak trees from the Teak Wood Plantation of Thrilisseri Section at Begur Range, under the direction of the petitioner herein. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is implicated in the case on the basis of the B.A. Nos.7291 & 7295 of 2009 2 confession alleged to have been made by the first accused. The counsel points out that only the name of one Shameer is mentioned by the first accused and that Shameer is not the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor with reference to the C.D file, submitted that the name, father’s name and address of the petitioner as shown in these Bail Applications were mentioned by the first accused in his statement and that there is no question of any mistake regarding the identity. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accept the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The offence alleged is grave in nature. Unauthorised cutting of teak trees from the Reserve Forest or the Teak Plantation belonging to the Government is to be viewed very seriously and anticipatory bail cannot be granted, when there is a prima facie case to indicate that the accused is involved in the offence of this nature. In the present case, prima facie, I am satisfied that there are materials to implicate the petitioner in the case. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the B.A. Nos.7291 & 7295 of 2009 3 view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would aversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm