IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 509 of 2008()
1. JEBY JOHN, S/O.JOHN, PANAKKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.509 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations under the Wild Life Protection Act. The crux of the
allegations is that the petitioner had got a consignment of 56
parrots brought from Bangalore for eventual transportation to
his establishment by name Golden Aquarium at Kunnamkulam.
The parrots were brought in a contract carriage bus operating
on the route. From that, it was unloaded into the vehicle of the
second accused. The second accused, in the course of
interrogation, furnished information to the forest officials that he
was engaged in the activity of transportation of the parrots to
the Golden Aquarium of the petitioner. Accordingly, the
petitioner has been arrayed as the first accused. Investigation is
in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has nothing to do with
the second accused. The second accused must have been
prevailed upon by some of his business rivalries to give the name
of the petitioner as the person to whom the consignment was
B.A.No.509/08 2
sent. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be granted
anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the
investigation so far clearly reveals the culpable involvement of
the petitioner in the transportation of parrots in violation of the
provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act. The petitioner does
not, at any rate, deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. The
petitioner may be directed to surrender before the investigating
officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then
seek regular bail. Detailed interrogation of the petitioner is
necessary to ascertain the details of the crime.
4. The case diary has been placed before me. I have
perused the same. I have, in particular, gone through the
confession statement of the second accused. I shall not, at this
early stage, to express any opinion on the contentions raised or
about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the
data collected. Suffice it to say that having considered all the
relevant inputs, I am of the view that the petitioner does not
deserve invocation of the the extraordinary equitable discretion
B.A.No.509/08 3
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public
Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before
the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having
jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and
ordinary course.
5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to
say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer
or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving
sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case,
the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders
on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
B.A.No.509/08 4
B.A.No.509/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007