IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6885 of 2008() ----------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------------------ SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, ELANJICKAL HOUSE, KOLERI P.O.,VALANCHERY,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE RANGE OFFICER KALPETTA FOREST RANGE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE RANGE OFFICER MOONNANAKUZHI FOREST RANGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6885 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 2(2), 2(16)(a) (c), 2(31)(a), 2(36)a, Section 39(1)(a)(b)(d), 44(1)(a)(b), 49(B)(iii), 50(1)(a), 51 of Wild Life Protection Act 1972 and Section 27(1)(c) (iv) of Kerala Forest Act. According to prosecution, 11 accused are involved in this crime. Petitioner is A2, who allegedly gave direction to hunt a leopard. Petitioner himself shot down the leopard, using his own gun. Thereafter, the skin was removed and was transported thorough other accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. He is not involved in any other case. No materials are collected against petitioner on investigation and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against petitioner are serious in nature and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The gun used for shooting leopard is not BA No. 6885/2008 2 recovered and petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and recovery. 5. On hearing both sides, in the nature of allegations made and considering the nature of investigation required, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though the petitioner asserted that he is innocent, there is no material to support the plea of innocence. Petitioner is required for effecting recovery of the gun and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Crime is registered as early as on 15.9.2008 and petitioner was not available for interrogation or investigation. Therefore, investigation is in a stand still. 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