ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in respect of a Crime registered as O.R.No.2/2021 of Pattikkad Forest Station, Pattikkad Forest Range, Thrissur Division. That occurrence report has been registered alleging the commission of offences under Rules 2(a), 3, 4 and 7 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules 1995, Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 52, 61A and 67, 30(1)(c), 76(f) and (g) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The petitioner received Annexure-3 notice stated to have been issued under Section 160(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, indicating that the petitioner is an accused in O.R.No.2/2021. This prompted the filing of this bail application, apprehending arrest in the above crime. The allegation in O.R.No.2/2021 is that 84 teak trees were cut and removed from land assigned for agricultural purposes, knowing fully well that the trees are the property of the Government.

3. Sri. M.P. Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted with reference to Annexure-2 statement filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur Division before this Court in W.P.(Crl) No.143/2022 (A petition filed by the 1st accused in the above crime namely one John Rafi K.J.) that in paragraph 6 of the said statement, the names of the accused persons in the above crime are mentioned and the petitioner herein is not one among them. It is submitted that the statement is dated 28.2.2022 while Annexure-3 notice issued under Section 160(1) Cr.P.C., to the petitioner is dated 21.2.2022. It is submitted that there is an apparent contradiction between Annexure-2 statement and Annexure-3 notice in as much as in Annexure-2 filed on 28.2.2022, the petitioner is not shown as an accused in the above crime while Annexure-3 notice describes the petitioner as an accused in the case. It is submitted that a notice under Section 160(1) of Cr.P.C. is a provision for issuing a notice to a witness and not to an accused and therefore, Annexure-3 itself is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that amongst the provisions of law mentioned in the occurrence report, Rule 7 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975 Rules') and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code are the only penal provisions. It is submitted that the provisions mentioned in relation to the Kerala Forest Act are not penal provisions, but procedures. It is submitted that under Rule 7 of the 1975 Rules, the punishment provided for is a maximum of six months or a fine of Rs.100/- or with both. It is submitted that Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is the only non-bailable offence. It is submitted that in the light of the fact that Annexure-3 notice is illegal and again considering the contents of Annexure-2 statement, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. It is submitted that property involved in O.R.No.2/2021 belongs to the 1st accused in the case by virtue of a registered sale deed (Annexure-4). It is submitted that his predecessor-in- interest obtained Annexure-6 Pattayam (document evidencing assignment) under the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1965. It is submitted that in Annexure-6 Pattayam issued on 21.9.1972, there is no mention of any tree standing on the property. It is submitted that by virtue of the amendment made to the Kerala Land Assignment Rules on 10.10.2017 vide SRO 621/2017, condition No.1 in the Pattayam issued under Rule 9 (3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules has been changed. It is submitted that the provisions of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 will not apply to Annexure-6 Pattayam as the same was issued prior to coming into force of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986. It