IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6309 of 2008() ----------------------------- CR. NO. 78/2008 OF CHEMENI POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): -------------------- P.GOVINDAN, PO.KARIVELLUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CR.NO.78/2008 OF CHEEMENI POLICE STATION) KASARAGOD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6309 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 379 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner bid on auction the right to cut and remove trees from an estate of Plantation Corporation at Chemeni. According to prosecution, petitioner had cut and removed 51 “kattadi” trees from the Corporation without consent and without any authority and thereby committed offence under section 379 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had bid on auction on 1-4-2008 the right to cut and remove trees from the Corporation and he was cutting and removing trees,until 13-8-208. On 13-8-2008 he was asked to stop the work. He sent a lawyer notice, since he suffered huge loss. Thereafter, the present complaint was lodged on 1-7-2008. Petitioner has not committed any offence. He was allowed to remove the trees which are pointed out by the officials of the Corporation, and if at all anything is done, there is only a violation of the agreement, which was executed between himself and the BA 6309/08 -2- Corporation and no offence is involved. It is also submitted that more than rupees four lakhs are deposited as security by petitioner in the Corporation. Therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail, since the dispute is of a civil nature, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the cutting was done by labourers and if any trees unauthorizedly cut, the supervisors are there and they could stop the cutting. But, it was not done. 5. The application is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this case involves not an innocent cutting of trees or a mere violation of terms of an agreement. There is a deliberate act, with the connivance of the supervisors which amount to offence. Two supervisors were suspended from the service. It is also submitted that there was an agreement to cut and remove 7791 cashew trees and 190 other types of trees which include only 10 “kattadi” trees. Though the details of the trees were specifically given to petitioner in writing, he cut and removed 51 “kattadi” trees. This is done with intention to commit theft. There was no permission to remove such trees from the estate but the supervisors gave permission to remove the BA 6309/08 -3- same illegally. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail taking into consideration the nature of allegations made. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.