IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3635 of 2008(G)
1. GOPI PILLAI, AGED 63, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PALODE.
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No.3635 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. A crime is registered under Sections 9, 39, 51 of the Wild
Life Protection Act against the petitioner and another, on the
allegation that they have hunted Wild Pig and shared the meat. The
meat was seized from the property of the second accused.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the seizure
mahazar does not even mention the name of the petitioner. As per
the seizure mahazar, some meat was seized from the property of
one Reji Thomas, who is the second accused in the crime. But, when
the forest officials went to the accused’s house, he was not available
there. Later, the petitioner is also made an accused in the crime
without any basis, it is submitted. The petitioner is only a neighbour
of said Reji Thomas.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the Wild
Pig does not come under the Schedule and hence offence under
Section 9 is not attracted. Only Wild Andaman Pig comes under
Schedule-I, it is submitted.
BA.3635/08 2
5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that three accused have committed offence together and
petitioner is the first accused. He was engaged in hunting along
with other two accused and they have shared the meat also. A
portion of the meat was recovered from the property of the second
accused under a mahazar. It is submitted that the third accused
could not be so far arrested. It is also submitted that Wild Pig is
also a wild animal coming in Schedule II as item No.19 and hunting
of the said animal is also prohibited under Section 9 of the Act.
6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the prima facie
involvement of the petitioner in the offences and this is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail especially since the co-accused is yet
to be arrested.
This petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.