IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6705 of 2009() ----------------------------- O.R.NO.27/09 OF KODANAD FOREST RANGE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- T.R.JAYESH, AGED 29,S/O.RAMANKUTTY NAIR,CHERUKUNNATH HOUSE, PERAMBRA P.O.,CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KODANAD (O.R.27/2009) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6705 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th 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 petitioner is accused No.7 in O.R.No.27 of 2009 of Kodanad Forest Range, Ernakulam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 2, 9, 39(1)(b), 39(1)(d), 39(2), 39(3)(a)(b)(c), 51 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 12.9.2009, the forest officials intercepted a Tata Indigo car, bearing Registration No.KL56A-7029. On questioning the persons found in the car, it was revealed that they had come to Ernakulam to trade in leopard skin. It was also revealed that the leopard skin was available in a Toyota Innova car, bearing Registration No.KL 14E-6924. The forest officials tried to find out the car. Though they found out the car at Kadavanthra, Ernakulam, the persons who were in the car escaped. Leopard skin was also not found inside the car. However, hairs of B.A. NO. 6705 OF 2009 :: 2 :: leopard were found in the car. They were taken for analysis by the Expert. 4. The prosecution case is that the petitioner has active role and involvement in the offence alleged. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would certainly adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. There is no reason why the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted to the petitioner. In the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/