IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1354 of 2010()
1. RATHEESH, S/O. VIJAYAN,
... Petitioner
2. SHAMNAD @ SADIQUE, S/O. SHAJI,
3. RAMESH, S/O. VIJAYAN,
4. BIJU, S/O. THANKAPPAN,
5. BAIJU, S/O. THANKAPPAN,
6. SHYJU, S/O. THANKAPPAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :17/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 1354 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
This Bail Application is filed by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 8
in O.R.No. 1/2010 of Vallakadavu Forest Range, Idukki District,
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused
Nos. 1 to 4 had filed B.A. No. 584/2010 and accused Nos. 5 to 8
had filed B.A.No. 690/2010 before this court. Those Bail
Applications were disposed of by the order dated 16.02.2010.
2. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 2 to 9 in the
order dated 16.02.2010 are extracted below:
“2. The offences alleged against the
accused are under Sections 2, 9, 39, 42, 44,
49, 49 B, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life
Protection Act.
3. The prosecution case is the following:
On getting intelligence information that a
leopard skin was being transported in the Jeep
bearing registration number KL 02 C 6072, on
23-1-2010, Mundakkayam Forest Flying squad
arrested accused Nos. 1 to 4 (Ratheesh,
B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 2
Shamnad alias Sadique, Asokan and Afsal)
while they were transporting a leopard skin.
Apart from the leopard skin, a G.P.S., film
rolls, batteries etc. were also found in a bag
kept in the jeep.
4. Further investigation revealed that the
leopard was trapped by accused Nos. 1 and 5
to 8 by using a cable. The trap was laid by
them near a trench in Rattington Valley
Reserve in Periyar Tiger Reserve. On finding
that a leopard was trapped, they killed the
same by pelting heavy stones. The leopard
was then kept concealed. Later, the skin was
removed. They also cooked the meat of
leopard. But the meat was not tasty and
therefore, it was thrown away. The carcass of
leopard was disposed of by them. The skin
was dried and kept.
5. Accused No. 1, Ratheesh, was working
as a temporary Mazdoor worker of
Vallakkadavu Forest Range. He was entrusted
with the duty of tiger monitoring also. Accused
No. 5, Ramesh, is the elder brother of accused
No. 1. Accused Nos. 6,7 and 8 ( Biju, Baiju
and Shaiju) are the neighbours of accused No.
1. Accused No. 6 Biju was working as a Fire
B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 3
watcher of Periyar West Division at Pampa.
Accused No. 7 Baiju was working as a watcher
of Vallakkadavu Forest Check post.
6. The taxi jeep driven by Accused No. 3
Asokan was hired by Accused No. 1. Accused
No. 4 Afsal was also in the jeep. Afsal is the
son of the owner of the taxi jeep. It would
appear that the jeep was taken in auction from
Marayoor a few weeks before the date of
incident. Prima facie, it would appear that
Asokan and Afsal were not aware of the
transportation of tiger skin. The jeep was
hired by the first accused. It is alleged that
the second accused Shamnad alias Sadique
wanted to purchase the tiger skin.
7. From the Case Diary, it is revealed
that the second accused had met with a road
traffic accident two years ago in which he
sustained severe injuries. Even now, he has
urinary problems and he uses urine bags.
8. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were arrested on
23-1-2010, while accused Nos. 5 to 8 were
arrested on 27-1-2010. They are in judicial
custody.
B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 4
9. The offences levelled against the
accused are grave in nature. The offence was
committed inside the reserve forest and in the
tiger reserve. A leopard, a rare species of wild
animal, was trapped by them. They killed the
leopard, collected its skin and tried to sell it.
Accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7 are temporary
workers in the Forest Department. That makes
the offence graver. They are bound to protect
the forest and the wild life. Their duty to
protect wild life is greater that of any other
citizen.”
3. As per the order dated 16.02.2010, bail was granted to
accused Nos. 3 and 4 (Ashokan and Afsal). However, bail was not
granted to other accused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
bail was refused to the petitioners on taking into account
irrelevant facts. He referred to paragraphs 10 and 11 in the order
dated 16.02.2010 in support of this contention. The counsel
submitted that in view of the same, the petitioners are entitled to
pray for bail again irrespective of any finding or observations in
the order dated 16.02.2010. The petitioners are not entitled to get
a review of the order dated 16.02.2010. However, nothing
prevents them from moving for bail afresh. Therefore, I do not
B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 5
think that I need consider the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in this regard. If the petitioners are
aggrieved by the findings or observations in the order dated
16.02.2010, they cannot collaterally challenge the same in
another Bail Application.
5. The question to be considered in this Bail Application is
whether at this stage, the petitioners are entitled to be released
on bail. Accused No.1(Ratheesh), was working as a temporary
Mazdoor worker of Vallakadavu Forest Range. He was entrusted
with the duty of tiger monitoring also. Accused No.6(Biju) was
working as a Fire watcher of Periyar West Division at Pampa.
Accused No.7 (Baiju) was working as a watcher of Vallakkadavu
Forest Check Post.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the case of the second accused, Shamnad, at any rate stands on a
different footing. The allegation is that the second accused
Shamnad was the purchaser of the tiger skin. Therefore, I reject
the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in this regard. According to the prosecution, the
offence was committed with the help of three persons, who were
employed as workers in the forest itself. They had access to the
B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 6
forest as part of their duty, even without permission of any other
person in authority. That makes the offence graver. The other
accused persons are either the friends of accused Nos. 5, 6 or 7 or
the persons who were interested in purchasing the leopard skin.
7. The investigation of the case is not over. Several
valuable material particulars are to be collected during the
investigation. If the petitioners are released on bail at this stage,
it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. If
the petitioners are released on bail, it is most likely that they
may indulge in activities to intimidate or influence the witnesses.
The investigating officer may not be able to get valuable materials
to constitute the material evidence in the case, if the petitioners
are released on bail at this stage.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is
dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln