IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4412 of 2008() ------------------------- O.R.NO.5/08 IN KANNAVAM FOREST RANGE, THALASSERY PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------- 1. VACHALI PREMAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KOMMERI DESOM, KOLAYAD AMSOM. 2. THENIYADAN VINODAN, S/O.VIJAYAN, RESIDING DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE RANGE OFFICER, KANNAVAM FOREST RANGE, NADUMBOIL SECTION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4412 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face allegations of having committed the offences punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The alleged incident took place on 10.08.08. The crux of the allegations is that a wild pig - an animal included in Schedule-III of the said Act was hunted and its flesh was being distributed. A forest crime has been registered. Occurrence report NO.5 of 2008 is registered and investigation is in progress. The petitioners moved the bail Bench of this Court for anticipatory bail. That application stands dismissed. That order has not been challenged. The petitioners instead have chosen to come before this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the occurrence report/crime registered against them. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegedly hunted wild pig has not been seized and what is seized is only a meager quantity of flesh. In the absence of seizure of the animal which was hunted, the inference lightly drawn that the flesh that was available came out of such an Crl.M.C. No.4412 of 2008 2 illegal by hunted wild pig is not justified. The petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of further proceedings in investigation on the basis of such flimsy allegations. The crime registered may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prays the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. I find no merit in the prayer to quash the proceedings at this early stage. Investigation is in progress. The available indications do appear to suggest that a wild pig was hunted. Of course evidence to substantiate that allegation has got to be collected in the course of investigation. At any rate, I am not satisfied that the investigation deserves to be quashed by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction at this stage. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. Their application for anticipatory bail having been dismissed and they having not approached the superior courts, the only option available to the petitioners is to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are prepared to adopt that course. But they apprehend that their Crl.M.C. No.4412 of 2008 3 application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. To ensure that, appropriate directions may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C, it is prayed. The court may be directed to follow the dictum in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339] and consider their application for bail to be filed by the petitioners on the date of surrender itself, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. It is incumbent on all courts to consider applications for bail filed by accused persons who surrender before them on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously if sufficient prior notice of such application is given to the Prosecutor in charge of the case. Every court is bound to follow the direction in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. I am not satisfied that it is necessary for this Court in every subsequent case to issue directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in Crl.M.C. No.4412 of 2008 4 Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police . Every court must do the same. I have no reason to assume that the same shall not be done. If there be non compliance, the avenues of challenge/complaint are available for the petitioner. 6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the above specific observations. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners for production before the court below. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-