IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7124 of 2008() ----------------------------- OR.NO.12/2008 ON THE FILE OF WILD LIFE WARDEN, SULTHAN BATHERY CRIME NO.473/2008 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.8 -------------------------------- SABU, S/O. PAILY, AGED 35, EDATHARA HOUSE, MANTHONDIKUNNU, KUPPADY VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN, WILD LIFE RANGE, SULTHAN BATHERY (OR NO. 12/2008) 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION (CRIME NO. 473/2008) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7124 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 2(1), (16), (20), (26), (32), (33), (35), (36), (37), (38) and Sections 9, 27, 31, 32, 34, 29, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act and under Sections 27 and 52 of the Kerala Forest Act and Section 25(1)(a) and Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act. According to prosecution, A1, A2, A3, A4 and A7 trespassed into the forest and A3 shot dead, a spotted deer. The gun used for shooting the deer was supplied to A3 by A5. It is also revealed that A8 is the person who gave the gun to 5th accused for the purpose. After hunting, meat of the deer was shared by all the accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the only incriminating material against 8th accused is the statement given by 5th accused. If at all, the entire allegations are admitted, the offence which is committed by petitioner would not constitute any offence under Wild Life Protection Act or the Forest Act and it can only be under the Arms Act, it is submitted. There is no BA No.7124 /2008 2 case for prosecution that petitioner was engaged in any hunting or that he trespassed into the forest. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that there are materials in the case diary to indicate that A8 is the person who had supplied the gun for the purpose of hunting. It is also revealed that he shared the meat of the spotted deer which was shot dead from the forest. It also appears from the materials available that the gun which was supplied by A8 is an unlicensed gun. It is necessary therefore that petitioner is interrogated to find out the source of gun and how he has come into possession of the gun. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and also the nature of investigation which will be required, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner will be required for interrogation to ascertain the relevant materials which are within his exclusive knowledge. Only if the petitioner is interrogated in custody, those can be brought to light. The crime was registered as early as on BA No.7124 /2008 3 30.10.2008 and petitioner could not be interrogated so far. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, respondent is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any time and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl