IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 441 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- CRMP.3/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM O.R.NO.24/2009 OF ARYANKAVU FOREST RANGE, KOLLAM. .................... PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ KARUPPA SWAMY @ SWAMY, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. VELU SWAMY, ANKAN COLONY, THERKUMUDU PULIYARAI, CHENCOTTAH TALUK, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT/ STATE: ------------------------------------ THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ARYANKAVU FOREST RANGE, KOLLAM DIST., REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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