IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4912 of 2008()
1. JAMES, S/O.MANI, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. AJESH,S/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 25 YEASRS,
3. DILIP,S/O.NARAYANAN AGED 25 YEARS,
4. BASIL, S/O.JOHNY AGED 28 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :25/09/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.4912 & 4916 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008
O R D E R
These petitions are for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 27, 31 and 32
of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Accused nos. 2, 5 to 7 are the
petitioners in B.A.No.4912/08 and accused nos. 3 and 4 are the
petitioners in B.A.No.4916/2008. According to prosecution,
accused nos. 1 to 7 trapped a wild goat and killed it and they
planned to share the meat and thereby committed various offences
under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The
first accused was already arrested and released on bail. The
petitioners apprehend arrest on allegation of non bailable offence.
They are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Petitioners
are implicated by the first accused. But, even as per the statement
given by him, petitioners’ involvement in the offence will not be
revealed, it is submitted. The first accused has allegedly informed
the seventh accused when he found wild goat in a trap and first
accused and other accused came to the scene and second accused
BA No.4912 & 4916/08 2
killed the animal and removed it to and kept it in the property of
the water authority. Others were only standing nearby. Therefore,
no offence is committed by the petitioners, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor
submitted that the offence committed is of a serious nature. The
allegations are that all the accused together had trapped the
animal and decided to share the meat and killed the animal and it
was kept in the property of the water authority. The investigation
is going on. Only, the first accused could be arrested and others
could not be arrested so far, though the incident happened as early
as on 21.7.2008. Petitioners are required for the purpose of
investigation. It is understood that they are involved in similar
other offences and this appears from the statement of the first
accused itself.
5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of offence
committed, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioners. The petitioners will be required for custodial
interrogation for an effective investigation.
Hence, petitions are dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl