IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6532 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2976/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD O.R.NO.9/2008 OF FOREST RANGE OFFICE, ALATHUR PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------- MOIN RAFEED, S/O.KAMMUKUTTY HAJI, O.K.H.HOUSE, MANKAVE P.O., KOZHIKODE-7. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ALATHUR, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6532 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, some rocks were blasted near the boundary of vested forest causing a loss of Rs.3,000/- to Government. On investigation, it is found that petitioner is the owner of the quarry. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations in the mahazar themselves reveal that petitioner is innocent. It is disclosed that a person who was questioned by the forest officials stated that quarry work was being conducted by workers and not by petitioner. Though the petitioner is the owner of the quarry, he used to come to the quarry only occasionally. It is also submitted that the workers would have exceeded the limit and crossed the border while engaged in quarrying but petitioner cannot be fastened with the criminal liability of having committed the offence. It is pointed out that the workers who were actually involved in the offence were granted anticipatory bail and if the person who was not even present at the scene at the time of BA 6532/08 -2- occurrence is refused anticipatory bail. It will result in great injustice, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that petitioner is involved in another crime also, of similar nature. That was the reason why anticipatory bail was refused to him. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that it is only just and proper that anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner also. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation. (2) Thereafter, in the event of his arrest, if any, he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. BA 6532/08 -3- iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence while on bail. iv) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.