IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6470 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 1050/2008 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------ SATHYAN P.S. AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, PULIELLUMPURAM HOUSE, VATTAMPARA P.O.,PINDIMANA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL SRI.T.V.VARGHESE SRI.P.P.SUDHEER (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6470 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th 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 allegedly cut and removed an angili tree standing in the property belonging to the Irrigation Department. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Asst. Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department. In the complaint it is specifically stated that tree was cut and removed by one “Velu” and the tree was found in the property of “Velu” also. But, later with an intention to help him, he has been exonerated and petitioner has been falsely implicated in his place. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to petitioner, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that originally the investigation was conducted against the said Velu. Because, Karshaka Samithy filed a complaint before the Asst. Executive Engineer alleging that the tree was cut and removed by Velu and BA 6470/08 -2- on the basis of such complaint, he lodged a complaint before police. Hence, the investigation was carried on against the said Velu. But, during investigation, it is revealed that petitioner himself is involved and there are more sufficient materials to implicate petitioner with the crime. It is submitted that petitioner cleverly cut down the tree and kept it in property of Velu. The property from where the tree is cut is lying adjacent to the property of Velu and he had raised an objection that the tree was slanding over his property and he wanted the tree to be cut and removed and petition was also field. Later, petitioner made false representations that he had taken the tree on auction and arranged certain persons to cut the tree. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the tree was cut down at the instance of petitioner and he had made arrangements to certain persons to cut the tree. It is revealed from investigation that even the permission of Velu was obtained by making fraudulent representation to him that petitioner had taken the tree on auction and accordingly, Velu allowed petitioner to keep the tree in his property. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA 6470/08 -3- 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.