IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6713 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRMP.2246/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA O.R. NO.19/2009 OF CHEDALATH FOREST RANGE OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- K.E.JAMES, S/O.ELDHO, AGED 43 YEARS, KALARIKAL HOUSE, CHEEYAMBAM, P.O.CHEEYAMBAM, IRULAM VILLAGE, S.BATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING FOREST RANGE OFFICER, CHEDALATH RANGE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6713 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 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 accused No.1 in O.R. No.19/2009 of Chedalath Forest Range Office, Sulthan Bathery. 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 13/9/2009, accused Nos. 1 to 3 trespassed into the Government forest and cut and removed a Rose wood tree. They transported the same in a vehicle belonging to the 3rd accused. The timber was sold to the 4th accused. 4. The petitioner moved for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Kalpetta. That application was dismissed by the order dated 3rd November, 2009. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. After having heard the learned counsel for B.A. No. 6713/2009 2 the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the petitioner. Prima facie, there are materials to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the offene. The offence alleged is serious in nature. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm