Full Judgment
BAIL APPL. NO. 134 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 134 OF 2022 (O.R.No.12/2021 OF PATTIKAD FOREST STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.5 AND 6 1 ALI P. AGED 51 YEARS S/O.KUNCHI MUHAMMED HAJI P., PUTHUTHOTTIL HOUSE, SOUTH ANNARA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 101. 2 MUNSHAR AGED 39 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KHADAR, RAYAMMARAKAR VEETTIL, THRITHALLUR WEST, VADANAPPALLY, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT EDAKAZHIYUR, NEAR SINGAPORE PALACE, WEST BEACH ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 515. BY ADVS. V.MAHENDRANATH P.T.SHEEJISH RESPONDENT/STATE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. P.G.MANU- SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 134 OF 2022 2
ORDER
This application for pre-arrest bail has been filed by the petitioners for the second time. The crime has been registered against them as O.R. No.12/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections Sections 2(16), 2(32), 9, 39(1)(a)(b)(d), 3(a)(b)(c), 50, 51(1) and 57 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and Sections 7, 24 and 55 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
2. The prosecution has alleged that the accused were found in unauthorized possession of 19 kgs. of 'ambergris' on 09.07.2021 by the forest officials near Kajah Resort kept for the purpose of sale in black
market. The same is included in Serial No.5A in Schedule II Part II of Wildlife (Protection) Act and is coming under protected species. It was seized from the possession of the petitioners by the forest officials. But
they could apprehend only accused Nos.1,2 and 3. The value of the same in the black market is Rs.30 Crores. Sale of 'Ambergris' which is used for making perfumes is prohibited by law. Now the investigation of the case is only proceeding with as the some of the accused have not been apprehended so far.
3. The petitioners have moved this application raising a plea of false
implication. Their earlier bail application was dismissed by this court on 16.11.2021 directing the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer at the earliest and to co-operate with the investigation of the case. But this application has been filed by the petitioner pointing out that some of the accused persons had already been granted bail. True that some of the
BAIL APPL. NO. 134 OF 2022 3 accused persons were granted bail. But they were granted regular bail after the investigation progressed to a considerable extent. But these petitioners did not surrender to co-operate with the investigation despite the directions of this Court. So materials required for an effective investigation are quite lacking. Earlier application was dismissed taking into consideration of the nature of the accusation and nature of the supporting evidence involved in the case. Interrogation of them in custody appears to be inevitable.
4. No doubt the offences alleged are grave and serious in nature.
Since they have not co-operated with the investigation and they could not point out any circumstances so as to infer that there is substantial change to the circumstances so as to have a fresh look to the case, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as sought for.
5. Therefore, they are again directed to surrender before the investigating agency within a week. And upon their surrender the investigating agency can proceed with the investigating of the case at the earliest. Such being the case, the petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail as requested. Dismissed. Sd/- SHIRCY V JUDGE smm