IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 441 of 2010()
1. KARUPPA SWAMY @ SWAMY, AGED 25 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :05/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 441 of 2010
---------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner
is accused No.4 in O.R. No.24/2009 of Aryankavu Forest
Range, Kollam.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are
under Sections 2(2), 31(a), 39(1)(b), 49A, 49 B, 50 and 51 of
the Wild Life Protection Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 23/12/2009, a
reliable information was received in the forest range office
that the leopard skin was being kept for sale in the house of
accused No.1. The forest officials went to the house of
accused No.1. On a search conducted therein, the leopard skin
was found. Accused No.1 was taken into custody. He stated
that the leopard skin was entrusted to him by the second
accused. Accused No. 2 was arrested. His version was that
accused No.4 had entrusted the leopard skin to him for
B.A. No. 441 /2010
2
dealing with the same. The petitioner is accused No.4 and he
apprehends arrest.
4. The offences alleged against the accused are grave in
nature. In the offences of this nature, it is not proper to grant
anticipatory bail, unless the court is satisfied that the person is
either falsely implicated or that there is mistaken identity or that
there are other circumstances indicating that the petitioner is not
involved in the offence. On the other hand, if prima facie
materials are shown to exist to show the complicity of the
petitioner in the offence, the discretionary relief under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be granted in
favour of the petitioner in such cases.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view
that there are prima facie materials to indicate that the petitioner
is also involved in the offence. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am not inclined to grant the discretionary relief under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the
petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be
B.A. No. 441 /2010
3
required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the
petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of
the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm