High Court Kerala High Court

Rajan vs State Of Kerala Through The Forest on 4 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Rajan vs State Of Kerala Through The Forest on 4 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4358 of 2008()


1. RAJAN,S/O KUNJAN, BLOCK NO.1059,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. REJI THOMAS, S/O THOMAS, EMMANUEL

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE FOREST
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :04/08/2008

 O R D E R
                            K.HEMA, J.
                   ------------------------------
                      B.A. No.4358 OF 2008
                   ------------------------------
               Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008


                             O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. A crime was registered under Sections 9, 39 and 51 of

the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. According to the

prosecution, 3 persons hunted a wild pig and on getting

information relating to the offence, the Forest Range Officer

proceeded to the property of the 2nd accused and found the meat

of a wild pig. The further allegation is that the meat was shared

by 3 persons and all of them are implicated as accused in this

case.

3. Petitioners are accused nos.2 and 3. Learned Counsel

for the petitioners submitted that there is nothing in the mahazar

to show that the petitioners were involved in hunting. He also

pointed out that no weapon was seized from the possession of

the petitioners or from the house, though a search was

conducted by the Forest Range Officer. The meat must have been

abandoned by somebody in the property of the 2nd accused which

B.A.4358/2008
2

was kept open and petitioners cannot be fastened with any

liability for the meat so found, it is submitted.

4. This petition is opposed. The anticipatory bail

application filed by the 1st accused was dismissed by this Court.

The meat was found in possession from the property of the 2nd

accused who is one of the petitioners. It is also submitted by the

learned Public Prosecutor that the case diary shows the

statement of the witness who revealed that the petitioners were

engaged in cutting the dead body of a wild pig from the property

of the 2nd accused. The petitioners are required for custodial

interrogation in the facts and circumstances of this case.

On hearing both sides, considering the nature of offence

committed, I find that granting of anticipatory bail will stand in

the way of an effective investigation and also from being

interrogated in the custody of the police. Hence it is not a fit case

to grant anticipatory bail.

The petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

pac