IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7772 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRMP.3298/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD O.R. NO.7/2008 OF OTTAPALAM FOREST RANGE, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 4-7: ------------------------------------------ 1. THULASIDAS, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 43 YEARS, MUDAKKUPUZHA GIYSEM, ADAKKAPUTHUR, OTTAPALAM. 2. SANTO JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, KIZHAKKEPUTHANPURA HOUSE, ADAKKAPUTHUR, OTTAPALAM. 3. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, ATHIRA NIVAS, ADAKKAPUTHUR, OTTAPALAM. 4. PRABHAKARAN, S/O.KESAVAN, AGED 36 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, ADAKKAPUTHUR, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, OTTAPALAM FOREST RANGE. SRI. AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.7772 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 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.4 to 7 in O.R. No.7/2008 of Ottapalam Forest Range, Palakkad. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 9 of the Wildlife Protection Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26/4/2008, the accused persons trespassed into the forest and killed a wild pig. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioners with the offence. 5. I have gone through the Case Diary and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. On a perusal of the Case Diary, I am not inclined to accept the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Prima facie, there are materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. 6. The offence alleged against the accused is serious in B.A. No.7772 /2009 2 nature. An offence under the Wildlife Protection Act cannot be dealt with lightly. It is not a case that the wild pig was killed while the animal was in the agricultural field of any of the accused. The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused persons trespassed into the forest and killed the wild pig. In such cases, I do not think that it would be justifiable to grant anticipatory bail to the accused persons. I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm