IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4358 of 2008(D) ----------------------------- (OFFENCE NO. 2/2008 OF FOREST RANGE, PALODE.) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 2 AND 3:- ---------------------------------- 1. RAJAN,S/O KUNJAN, BLOCK NO.1059, VADAKKARICKAKOM, EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY, PANGODE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REJI THOMAS, S/O THOMAS, EMMANUEL COTTAGE, EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY, PANGODE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PALODE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4358 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. A crime was registered under Sections 9, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. According to the prosecution, 3 persons hunted a wild pig and on getting information relating to the offence, the Forest Range Officer proceeded to the property of the 2nd accused and found the meat of a wild pig. The further allegation is that the meat was shared by 3 persons and all of them are implicated as accused in this case. 3. Petitioners are accused nos.2 and 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is nothing in the mahazar to show that the petitioners were involved in hunting. He also pointed out that no weapon was seized from the possession of the petitioners or from the house, though a search was conducted by the Forest Range Officer. The meat must have been abandoned by somebody in the property of the 2nd accused which B.A.4358/2008 2 was kept open and petitioners cannot be fastened with any liability for the meat so found, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. The anticipatory bail application filed by the 1st accused was dismissed by this Court. The meat was found in possession from the property of the 2nd accused who is one of the petitioners. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the case diary shows the statement of the witness who revealed that the petitioners were engaged in cutting the dead body of a wild pig from the property of the 2nd accused. The petitioners are required for custodial interrogation in the facts and circumstances of this case. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of offence committed, I find that granting of anticipatory bail will stand in the way of an effective investigation and also from being interrogated in the custody of the police. Hence it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac