IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 48 of 2009() -------------------------------------- (O.R.NO.21 OF 2008 OF THE FOREST RANGE, KASARAGOD) PETITIONERS-ACCUSED 2 TO 7: ------------------------------------------------- 1. ASHOKA NAIK.A.R, S/O.A.RAMA NAIK, THALEMANE HOUSE, P.O.PANDI, ADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. A.RAGHUVEERA NAIK, S/O.A.APPAYYA NAIK, PANDI HOUSE, P.O.PANDI, ADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 3. NAVEEN KUMAR NAIK, S/O.DEVAPPA NAIK, HOSAMANE, P.O.PANDI, ADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 4. RAJESH NAIK, S/O.APPAYYA NAIK, KELAGINAJALU HOUSE,P.O.PANDI, ADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. AMBADY, S/O.PUTHERIYAN, KARINGALAMOOLE HOUSE, P.O.PANDI, ADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. KUNHIKANNAN, S/O.PUTHERIYAN, KARINGALAMOOLE HOUSE, P.O.PANDI, ADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,KOCHI-31. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KASARAGOD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZE FOR R1 & R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.48 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 9, 39, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act and 27 (10(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused 2 to 7), along with first accused, hunted two wild pigs and they were cutting them to pieces, while forest officials detected the same. First accused was arrested from the spot and others ran away. Mahazar was prepared and a case was registered. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that as per Annexure-A1 report prepared by the forest officials, there is only one accused and there is no mention about the other accused. Therefore, petitioners are subsequently arrayed as accused without any basis, it is submitted. It is also submitted that even if the prosecution allegation is accepted, it is only based on a confession statement of first accused that these persons could be implicated. In such circumstances, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA.7854/08 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that this is not a case where details of the accused were not known to the forest officials at the time of preparation of the mahazar. Even at the very inception, the names and other details of accused were mentioned in mahazar and occurrence reports. Though first accused was arrested from the spot, on seeing the forest officials, other persons ran away and the persons, who ran away are petitioners. They are required for interrogation and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred as early as on 25.12.2008 and petitioners are required for investigation. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer or before the Magistrate Court and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, the police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.