IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6547 of 2009() ------------------------------------- O.R.NO. 13/2009 OF FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KAHANGAD .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 10 & 11: ----------------------------------------------- 1. T.J.JOSE AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PAYYICHERI, CHULLIKARA VILLAGE,' HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. RAJU O.A. AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM, R/AT VANNATHIKANAS, RAJAPURAM IN HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANHANGAD THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. S. SALIM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6547 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.10 and 11 in O.R.No.13/2009 of the Forest Range Office, Kahangad. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 2(1), 2(2), 2(14), 2(16), 2(20), 2(32), 9, 39, 50, 51 and 53 of the Wild Life Protection Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners herein and others hunted a wild boar. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court granted Anticipatory Bail to accused Nos.2 to 9 by the order dated 12.10.2009 in Bail Application No.5366/2009 and therefore the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief. There is no allegation against accused Nos.2 to 9 that they were responsible for hunting of the animal. The allegation against them was that they purchased the meat of the wild boar from the hunters. Therefore, the case of accused Nos.2 to 9 is not similar to that of the petitioners. B.A. No. 6547 of 2009 2 5. The petitioners moved for Anticipatory Bail before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions judge considered the facts and circumstances in detail. The learned Sessions Judge also considered the fact that Anticipatory Bail was granted to accused Nos.2 to 9 as per the order in Bail Application No. 5366/2009 and it was held that the case of accused Nos.10 and 11 stands on a different footing. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offence alleged against the petitioner is very serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances, custodial interrogation may be required in the case. If Anticipatory Bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln