IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1644 of 2009() --------------------------------------- O.R NO.1/2009 OF THOLPETTY FOREST RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- NAGARAJAN, S/O.VENKATACHALA PILLAI, GOPAL NIVAS, GAS ROAD, ERAMATHERUVU, MANANTHAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THOLPETTY FOREST RANGE, THOLPETTY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1644 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in O.R. No.1/2009 of Tholpetty Forest Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 27(1)(e)(iii)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26/02/2009 at about 9 P.M., while the Section staff of Bavali Section, Tholpetty Forest Range was on patrol duty, they found some people carrying timber on their head. On seeing the officers, the accused ran away leaving the timber. One Chinnappa @ Chinnu (A5) was apprehended. The investigation reveals that the petitioner is the kingpin of the offence and that large quantity of timber trees were cut and removed from the reserve forest. It is also revealed that the petitioner is the accused in two other Session Cases involving abkari offences. It is also stated in the statement filed by the first respondent that it is reliable learnt that the petitioner is involved in forest B.A. No. 1644 /2009 2 offence in the nearby Karnataka Reserve Forest. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to get an order of anticipatory bail. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm