Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 5106 OF 2022 O.R.No.14 of 2022 of Palode Forest Range Office PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED: SHAJEED AGED 39 YEARS S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, P.V. HOUSE, MARKET JUNCTION, PEYAD P.O., VILAPPIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541 BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT: SR.PP - SMT. SEETHA S. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA No.5106 of 2022 2
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
B.A.No.5106 of 2022 Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in O.R.No.14 of 2022 of Palode
Forest Range Office registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 2(2), 2(16), 2(20), 9, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (in short, “the Act”).
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner being a
Beat Forest Officer in the Forest Department on getting information that a barking deer protected under Schedule III of the Act was found dead and the petitioner took the carcass of the barking deer as if it was taken for doing postmortem, thereafter claimed to have thrown away the carcass in cane plantation.
4. Petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the abovesaid crime and he has absolutely no involvement in the alleged crime.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application
for bail mainly submitting that the petitioner who is a responsible Government employee is having a bounden duty to inform the incident to the higher authorities. Even though the petitioner claimed that the carcass BA No.5106 of 2022 3
was thrown into the cane plantation, even after a thorough search the remains of the barking deer could not be traced It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is understood that the petitioner has created a false story to mislead the investigation and the carcass of the barking deer was used either for illegal trade or consumed by both the accused, which is against the statute. Detailed investigation is going on and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary in the said case.
Going by the contentions raised by the learned Public
Prosecutor, prima facie I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail, especially for the fact that petitioner is a person who is employed in the forest department itself and is aware of the relevant provisions in the statute. Investigation is in progress and therefore the request for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner may surrender before the investigating officer and subject himself to interrogation. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the said crime, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day and if he moves an application for bail with advanced copy to the Public Prosecutor, the same shall be considered and disposed of without much delay.
Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE cks