IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6131 of 2008() ----------------------------- O.R.No.7/2008 OF PONGANANGADU FOREST STATION N PETITIONER (S): -------------------- SURESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, NANNAKERYVELI HOUSE, THANNERMUKKAM THEKE VILLAGE, MUHAMMA DESOM, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY FOREST RANGER, PONGANANGADU FOREST STATION, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6131 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 3(4) and 12(a) of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2003 and section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. According to prosecution, petitioner while working as second mahout of an elephant by name Ayyappankutty, inflicted injuries on the legs by hitting with a stick. A complaint was filed by the first mahout to the Devaswom Board and on the basis of this, a complaint was given by the Board to the police and a crime was registered. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the elephant can be controlled only by causing some hurt. Petitioner is only the second mahout. The elephant is in the custody of the 1st mahout. There is enmity between them and hence, he was falsely implicated with the offence. Petitioner is an employee of the Devaswom and if he is remanded to custody, he will lose his job, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that no recovery is to be effected and petitioner is not BA 6131/08 -2- required for the purpose of recovery. Hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the elephant was examined by the doctor and injuries were found. On hearing both sides and considering the allegations made, I find that it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. If the petitioner is innocent, he could have satisfied the Board about it. Hence, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.