IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6173 of 2009(A) ------------------------------ O.R.NO.2/08 OF NILAMBUR FOREST RANGE PETITIONER : 8TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ MR.ASKER ALI, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ABUBAKER, PARATHODIKA HOUSE, KOORADU, CHOLAKKAL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NILAMBUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6173 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 ORDER 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.2 of 2008 of Nilambur Forest Range. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and Sections 2(16), 2(35), 49, 50, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act. 3. On 1.2.2008, during night, the forest officials found 7 persons inside the 2003 teak plantations. On seeing the Forest Officials, all the persons ran away. However, the first accused Sreekumar was apprehended by the Forest Officials. A country gun, bullets, torch and other accessories were also found. During investigation, it has come out that the petitioner herein, who is also known as Nani, had planned and made all arrangements for the operation of wildlife hunting. It is true that the accused persons could not actually hunt any wild animals, most probably, due to the timely intervention of the forest officials. That does not mean that no offence was BA No.6173/2009 2 committed. Prima facie, I am of the view that there are materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. 4. The petitioner is involved in another offence, namely, O.R.No.7 of 2008 of Edavanna Forest Range in which the allegation is that he along with another person made all preparations and attempted to hunt wild animals inside the reserve forest. 5. The offences under the Forest Act and the Wild Life Protection Act are very serious and anticipatory bail applications in respect of those offences should not be dealt with in a light manner. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would have adverse impact on the smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl