IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6456 of 2009() ----------------------------------- O.R.NO. 5/2009 OF VELLIKULANGARA FOREST RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT .......................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- PAULY, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KOCHAPPU ULLATTIKKULAM HOUSE, PULLOOR DESOM, PULLOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT: -------------------- THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VELLIKKULANGARA FOREST RANGE, VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY SRI. V.S.SALIM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6456 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in O.R. No.5/2009 of Vellikulangara Forest Range Office, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 9,39, 40 (2 A), 50 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 06.03.2009, on a secret information that barn-owls (Vellimoonga) were illegally kept in the house of the accused, the Range Officer of the Flying Squad and party went to the house, in which the petitioner was allegedly residing. The house was found locked. The mother of the petitioner who was residing nearby stated that the petitioner was not in station. She also stated that two barn owls were kept in the house of the petitioner. The lock of the house was broke upon and the Range Officer and party took into custody two barn owls. B.A. No. 6456 of 2009 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the following: The petitioner is not the owner or occupant of the house. The house belongs to Dr. Anie John. The house No. is IX/67 with the old house No. VI/252. Annexure A2 and A3 certificates issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath are relied on to contend that the petitioner is not the owner or occupant of the house. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is residing in the house in question and the petitioner had kept barn owls in the house. Even if the ownership of the house does not belong to the petitioner, it is submitted that the real question to be considered is as to who committed offence and who had kept the barn owls in the house in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice that as per the voters list, the petitioner was the resident of house No. 6/252, which would indicate that the petitioner was residing in the house in question. 6. For the purpose of disposal of this application, it is B.A. No. 6456 of 2009 3 not necessary to arrive at a conclusion on this disputed question of fact. If a decision is rendered on that question, it would certainly cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the defence. The short question to be considered in this Bail Application is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary. If Anticipatory Bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln