IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7991 of 2007() ----------------------------- O.R.NO.4 OF 2007 OF SILENT VALLEY NATIONAL PARK : PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- RAFEEK, S/O.ALAVI, KAPPEKKADAN HOUSE, KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE WILD LIFE WARDEN, SILENT VALLEY NATIONAL PARK, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.7991 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. Altogether there are two accused persons. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, had allegedly trespassed into the Silent Valley National Park - reserve forest, for the alleged purpose of hunting. When they were intercepted by the forest officials, they took to their heels. Only the first accused could be apprehended. The other accused who had a gun with him allegedly ran away and escaped. When the first accused was arrested and interrogated, he gave the details of the person who had run away with the gun. The petitioner is alleged to be the said person/second accused who had allegedly run away. The first accused was arrested. Recoveries were effected of article from his possession. No killed animal or its meat was admittedly recovered. The articles recovered suggest that the miscreants had come to the forest planning to remain in the forest for some time allegedly for the purpose of hunting. The petitioner has been arrayed as the second accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. B.A.No.7991/07 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He was not the person who was allegedly available along with the first accused. He did not have any gun with him. There is no data to indicate that even the arrested first accused had gone to the forest for the purpose of hunting. In these circumstances, it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available indications convincingly point to the complicity of the petitioner also. It is true that no killed animal or its meat was recovered; but it is the case of the prosecution that they had trespassed into the forest for hunting but have not met with any success till then. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out to the court the nature of articles recovered from the possession of the first accused which suggests convincingly that the miscreants had come to the forest with the intention of remaining there for some time to carry out hunting. It is true that no gun was recovered from the possession of the first accused who was arrested; but it is the very specific case that the miscreant who was present along with the first accused had run away with the gun. B.A.No.7991/07 3 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for anticipatory bail and I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that the opposition is absolutely justified. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any features in this case which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.7991/07 4 B.A.No.7991/07 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007