Ramanan vs State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1631889
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnApr-27-2021
Case NumberBail Appl./3207/2021
JudgeHonourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
AppellantRamanan
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable dr. justice kauser edappagath tuesday, the 27th day of april 2021 / 7th vaisakha, 1943 bail appl..no.3207 of 2021 crime no.1/2021 of pathanapuram forest range office , kollam petitioner/accused: ramanan aged 54 years son of govindan, muthirapara lane, 5-354, koduman plantation, angadikkal, adoor, pathanamthitta by adv. shri.sasthamangalam s. ajithkumar respondent: state of kerala represented by public prosecutor,high court of kerala by public prosecutor smt. sreeja v. this bail application having come up for admission on 27.04.2021, the court on the same day passed the following:orderdated this the 27th day of april 2021 this is an application filed u/s 438 of code of criminal procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.2. the petitioner is the 7th accused in crime no.1/2021 of the pathanapuram forest range office, kollam. the offences alleged are under sections 2, 9, 39, 50, 51 and 57 of the wild life protection act, 1972.3. the prosecution case in short is that on 9.2.2021 at 4.30pm, the forest officials seized the meat of sambar deer from 1 st accused and on the confession that the accused used a gun belonging to one ramanan to hunt the sambar deer, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused. in the confession statement it was further stated that the gun belongs to the petitioner was handed over to them by one niju gangadharan who was arrayed as the 6th accused.4. heard both sides and perused the case diary.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. he further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and hence he is entitled to get bail. the learned public prosecutor opposed the bail application. he contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.6. the case records would show that the petitioner wasarrayed as an accused only on the basis of confession statement by accused nos.1 and 2 that they used the gun supplied by the petitioner for hunting the wild animal. it is seen from the records that thereafter, the local police also registered a crime against the petitioner under the arms act and a search was conducted at his house and some gun was seized. at any rate, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is in any way participated in the above crime. the recoveryhas already been effected. considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary. for all these reasons, the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail on conditions. in the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-(i) the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of hisarrest on executing a bond for `1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.(ii) the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of discovery, if any, as and when demanded.(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officerbetween 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every saturday until further orders. the petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.(iv) the petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.(v) the petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any ofthe prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.(vi) the petitioner shall not leave state of kerala without the permission of the trial court. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath kp true copy judge p.a. to judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 7TH VAISAKHA, 1943 Bail Appl..No.3207 OF 2021 CRIME NO.1/2021 OF PATHANAPURAM FOREST RANGE OFFICE , KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: RAMANAN AGED 54 YEARS SON OF GOVINDAN, MUTHIRAPARA LANE, 5-354, KODUMAN PLANTATION, ANGADIKKAL, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SREEJA V. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 27th day of April 2021 This is an application filed u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the 7th accused in Crime No.1/2021 of the Pathanapuram Forest Range Office, Kollam. The offences alleged are under Sections 2, 9, 39, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 9.2.2021 at 4.30

pm, the forest officials seized the meat of sambar deer from 1 st accused and on the confession that the accused used a gun belonging to one Ramanan to hunt the sambar deer, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused. In the confession statement it was further stated that the gun belongs to the petitioner was handed over to them by one Niju Gangadharan who was arrayed as the 6th accused.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and hence he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.

6. The case records would show that the petitioner was

arrayed as an accused only on the basis of confession statement by accused Nos.1 and 2 that they used the gun supplied by the petitioner for hunting the wild animal. It is seen from the records that thereafter, the local police also registered a crime against the petitioner under the Arms Act and a search was conducted at his house and some gun was seized. At any rate, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is in any way participated in the above crime. The recovery

has already been effected. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary. For all these reasons, the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail on conditions. In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his

arrest on executing a bond for `1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer

between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every Saturday until further orders. The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of

the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The petitioner shall not leave State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH kp True copy JUDGE P.A. To Judge