IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1354 of 2010() ----------------------------- BA.690/2010 of J.M.F.C., PEERUMEDU O.R.NO. 1/2010 OF VALLAKADAVU FOREST RANGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED1,2,5-8 : --------------------------------------- 1. RATHEESH, S/O. VIJAYAN, PUNNACKAL VEEDU, VANCHIVAYAL, GIRIJAN SETTLEMENT, VALLARKADAVU KARA, PERIYAR VILLAGE. 2. SHAMNAD @ SADIQUE, S/O. SHAJI, ELANJIYIL HOUSE, VALLAKADAVU BHAGOM, MANJUMALA VILLAGE. 3. RAMESH, S/O. VIJAYAN, PUNNACKAL HOUSE, VANCHIVAYAL COLONY, PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. 4. BIJU, S/O. THANKAPPAN, EETTIKUNNEL HOUSE, VANCHIVAYAL COLONY, PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. 5. BAIJU, S/O. THANKAPPAN, EETTIKUNNEL HOUSE, VANCHIVAYAL COLONY, PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. 6. SHYJU, S/O. THANKAPPAN, EETTIKUNNEL HOUSE, VANCHIVAYAL COLONY, PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 8 in O.R.No. 1/2010 of Vallakadavu Forest Range, Idukki District, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 had filed B.A. No. 584/2010 and accused Nos. 5 to 8 had filed B.A.No. 690/2010 before this court. Those Bail Applications were disposed of by the order dated 16.02.2010. 2. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 2 to 9 in the order dated 16.02.2010 are extracted below: “2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 2, 9, 39, 42, 44, 49, 49 B, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On getting intelligence information that a leopard skin was being transported in the Jeep bearing registration number KL 02 C 6072, on 23-1-2010, Mundakkayam Forest Flying squad arrested accused Nos. 1 to 4 (Ratheesh, B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 2 Shamnad alias Sadique, Asokan and Afsal) while they were transporting a leopard skin. Apart from the leopard skin, a G.P.S., film rolls, batteries etc. were also found in a bag kept in the jeep. 4. Further investigation revealed that the leopard was trapped by accused Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 by using a cable. The trap was laid by them near a trench in Rattington Valley Reserve in Periyar Tiger Reserve. On finding that a leopard was trapped, they killed the same by pelting heavy stones. The leopard was then kept concealed. Later, the skin was removed. They also cooked the meat of leopard. But the meat was not tasty and therefore, it was thrown away. The carcass of leopard was disposed of by them. The skin was dried and kept. 5. Accused No. 1, Ratheesh, was working as a temporary Mazdoor worker of Vallakkadavu Forest Range. He was entrusted with the duty of tiger monitoring also. Accused No. 5, Ramesh, is the elder brother of accused No. 1. Accused Nos. 6,7 and 8 ( Biju, Baiju and Shaiju) are the neighbours of accused No. 1. Accused No. 6 Biju was working as a Fire B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 3 watcher of Periyar West Division at Pampa. Accused No. 7 Baiju was working as a watcher of Vallakkadavu Forest Check post. 6. The taxi jeep driven by Accused No. 3 Asokan was hired by Accused No. 1. Accused No. 4 Afsal was also in the jeep. Afsal is the son of the owner of the taxi jeep. It would appear that the jeep was taken in auction from Marayoor a few weeks before the date of incident. Prima facie, it would appear that Asokan and Afsal were not aware of the transportation of tiger skin. The jeep was hired by the first accused. It is alleged that the second accused Shamnad alias Sadique wanted to purchase the tiger skin. 7. From the Case Diary, it is revealed that the second accused had met with a road traffic accident two years ago in which he sustained severe injuries. Even now, he has urinary problems and he uses urine bags. 8. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were arrested on 23-1-2010, while accused Nos. 5 to 8 were arrested on 27-1-2010. They are in judicial custody. B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 4 9. The offences levelled against the accused are grave in nature. The offence was committed inside the reserve forest and in the tiger reserve. A leopard, a rare species of wild animal, was trapped by them. They killed the leopard, collected its skin and tried to sell it. Accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7 are temporary workers in the Forest Department. That makes the offence graver. They are bound to protect the forest and the wild life. Their duty to protect wild life is greater that of any other citizen.” 3. As per the order dated 16.02.2010, bail was granted to accused Nos. 3 and 4 (Ashokan and Afsal). However, bail was not granted to other accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that bail was refused to the petitioners on taking into account irrelevant facts. He referred to paragraphs 10 and 11 in the order dated 16.02.2010 in support of this contention. The counsel submitted that in view of the same, the petitioners are entitled to pray for bail again irrespective of any finding or observations in the order dated 16.02.2010. The petitioners are not entitled to get a review of the order dated 16.02.2010. However, nothing prevents them from moving for bail afresh. Therefore, I do not B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 5 think that I need consider the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the findings or observations in the order dated 16.02.2010, they cannot collaterally challenge the same in another Bail Application. 5. The question to be considered in this Bail Application is whether at this stage, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. Accused No.1(Ratheesh), was working as a temporary Mazdoor worker of Vallakadavu Forest Range. He was entrusted with the duty of tiger monitoring also. Accused No.6(Biju) was working as a Fire watcher of Periyar West Division at Pampa. Accused No.7 (Baiju) was working as a watcher of Vallakkadavu Forest Check Post. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the second accused, Shamnad, at any rate stands on a different footing. The allegation is that the second accused Shamnad was the purchaser of the tiger skin. Therefore, I reject the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard. According to the prosecution, the offence was committed with the help of three persons, who were employed as workers in the forest itself. They had access to the B.A. No. 1354 of 2010 6 forest as part of their duty, even without permission of any other person in authority. That makes the offence graver. The other accused persons are either the friends of accused Nos. 5, 6 or 7 or the persons who were interested in purchasing the leopard skin. 7. The investigation of the case is not over. Several valuable material particulars are to be collected during the investigation. If the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. If the petitioners are released on bail, it is most likely that they may indulge in activities to intimidate or influence the witnesses. The investigating officer may not be able to get valuable materials to constitute the material evidence in the case, if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln