IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3519 of 2010() --------------------------------- O.R.NO. 14/2009 OF THANNITHODU FOREST STATION ................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------- U.M.SHANAVAS, AGED 40, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, UNNICHIRAYATHU HOUSE, 6TH MILE, CHAKKUPALAM P.O., KUMALI, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. ]RI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VADASSERIKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3519 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. The alleged offences are under Sections 27(1)(e), 2, 16(a), (b), ©, 9, 29, 44, 48(a), 49, 49(a), 49(b) of Wildlife Protection Act. According to prosecution, 6th accused told 5th accused that he would pay an amount Rs. 75,000/-, if he could procure a wild animal by name 'Loris tardigradus' and this information was passed on to the various other accused. Consequent to this, first accused procured such a wild animal and he conveyed this information to few other accused. Before, he could inform the 6th accused, forest officials got information about the act and they arrested, second accused with the animal. Thereby, all accused nos. 1 to 6 committed various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is not involved in the offences. Except the confession statement of the 5th accused, there is nothing on record to show that he is involved in the offence. All other accused are granted bail. Petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail. As per the order in that B.A. No. 3519 / 2010 2 application, the court, directed him to appear before the investigating officer for interrogation etc. But, he could not appear on the day fixed by the court, since he was sick. There was also a direction in the said order that if petitioner was interrogated and the learned Magistrate is satisfied of the same, his application for regular bail shall be disposed of preferably on the same day, on which, it is filed. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is the second application for anticipatory bail. The earlier application was disposed of, as per order dated 31.03.2010 in B.A.no. 7759/2009, wherein, another bench of this court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. Though a direction was issued to petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 16.04.2010 or 17.04.2010 he did not appear on those dates. But, he filed this petition on 04.06.2010, much after the dates fixed for his appearance before investigating officer. All the accused were arrested except petitioner, and he is required for the purpose of interrogation, it is submitted. B.A. No. 3519 / 2010 3 5. On hearing both sides, on considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. There is no reason to take a contrary view. Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and he is bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln