These Bail Applications are filed by Sulaiman, who is accused No.5 in O.R. No.2 of 2009 of Pariyaram Forest Range and accused No.3 in O.R. No.9 of 2009 of Vellikulangara Forest Range, for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 2 (f) (i) and Section 27 (1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act.

2. The gist of the prosecution case in O.R. No.2 of 2009 is the following: On 17-1-2009, when the Forest officials were inspecting Kumbidanmudi ANR Beat forest, they saw the stumps and branches of three sandalwood trees. A mahazar was prepared. O.R. No.2 of 2009 of Pariyaram Forest Range was registered in respect of the same. On 24-7-2009, Prathapan and Karunakaran (accused Nos.1 and 2) were found in the forest area with weapons for cutting trees. They tried to escape on seeing the forest officials. They were taken into custody. Prathapan and Karunakaran were involved in O.R. No.1 of 2009 and they were on bail in that case. They disclosed about the cutting of sandalwood trees. The stumps of the trees were also shown to the forest officials. They stated that they had sold 4 kilograms of sandalwood to Sulaiman (Petitioner) with the assistance of Thilakan (accused No.4). It is alleged that Thilakan is a broker and that Sulaiman is involved in dealing with sandalwood. Sulaiman has filed Bail Application No.4951 of 2009 for anticipatory bail.

3. In O.R. No.9 of 2009, the prosecution case, in a nut shell, is as follows: The officials of Vellikulangara Forest Range, on regular perambulation in Mankuttippadam reserve forest on 23-7-2009, got reliable information that Shaju and Sunilkumar (accused Nos.1 and 2) had cut and removed sandalwood trees from the reserve forest and had kept concealed the sandalwood in the house of Shaju. The forest officials searched the house and compound of Shaju. The sandalwood were found concealed in a pit in the residential compound. Shaju and Sunilkumar were taken into custody. They had shown to the forest officials the stumps of five sandalwood trees, which were cut down by them. It was disclosed that they had sold a portion of the sandalwood to Sulaiman (Petitioner). Bail Application No.4952 of 2009 is filed by Sulaiman for anticipatory bail.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Petitioner is not the person who according to the forest officials had purchased the sandalwood and there is a mistake regarding identity. I have gone through the case diary. The petitioner's house name is shown as Palathingal. The name of the person to whom the sandalwood was allegedly sold is also Palathingal Sulaiman. There are other indications also to show that the petitioner is the Sulaiman referred to by the prosecution. Prima facie, I do not think that there is any mistake regarding identity of the accused.

5. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. Prima facie, I am satisfied that there are materials to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the offence. However, it is not proper to arrive at any conclusion on the question of identity as well as complicity of the accused, while disposing of the application for anticipatory bail. At this stage, it is not necessary to meticulously consider the disputed questions of fact, which may assume importance at the time of trial. Any observation or finding on those aspects now, would cause prejudice, either to the prosecution or to the defence.

6. The offence alleged against the accused is grave in nature. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in O.R. No.2 of 2009 are involved in other forest offences as well.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there exists a `sandalwood mafia' in the State. Several persons are involved therein. Their activities are well organized. The State sustains huge loss due to the illegal activities of sandalwood mafia. It is stated that the Department of Forests finds it very