IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6047 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- O.R. NO.6/2009 OF KANHIRAPUZHA RANGE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 10,7 & 11: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJEESH,S/O.SOMAN, PUNNUR HOUSE,PATHAR P.O.,POTHUKAL. (POTHUKAL POLICE LIMIT) 2. SHYJU,S/O.JOSEPH, PONMALAKUNNEL HOUSE,PATHUR P.O., KURUMBALAMKODE AMSOM,NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SUBRAMANIAN,S/O.CHELLAN, PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE,PATHAR P.O., KURUMBALAMKODE AMSOM,NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT AS STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANJIRAPUZHA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.6047 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 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.10,9 and 12 respectively in O.R. No.6/2009 of Kanhirapuzha Range Office, Malappuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 2(1)(16)(20)(35)(36)(37), Section 9, 39, 39(d), 48(b) (i), 49 A, 49B, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 23/7/2009, the accused persons shot dead an Indian bison from the forest area. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are not involved in the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused Nos.9 and 10, Shyju and Sajeesh respectively, who are petitioners 2 and 1 in this Bail Application, were actively involved in the hunting. The position of accused No.12 (Subramanian) is different. The allegation is that he purchased the meat. He also helped the other accused in cleaning the meat of the dead B.A. No.6047 / 2009 2 animal. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that petitioners 1 and 2 (Sajeesh and Shyju) are entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, I am of the view that the 3rd petitioner (Subramanian- accused No.12) can be granted anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the 3rd petitioner (Subramanian- accused No.12), the officer concerned shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The 3rd petitioner (Subramanian- accused No.12) shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on all alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The 3rd petitioner (Subramanian- accused No.12) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. No.6047 / 2009 3 C) The 3rd petitioner (Subramanian- accused No.12) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The 3rd petitioner (Subramanian- accused No.12) shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above, in so far as it relates to the 3rd petitioner. The Bail Application is dismissed in respect of the prayer made by petitioners 1 and 2. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm