BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12395 of 2011 SHANMUGAVEL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER BOOTHA PANDY FOREST RANGE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. CRIME NO OR OR NO.48/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.F.DEEPAK ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.A.RAMAR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR BAIL UNDER SEC. 439 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioner is arrayed as A1 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.07.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 9 and 5 (1) (I) of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, in O.R.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the respondent and hence, seeks bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A1 in O.R.No.48 of 20011 on the file of the respondent police. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.07.2011, the petitioner has gone along with his friend for hunting rabbit near the mountain side and at that time, they say an Eye inside a bush and the petitioner with a help of a country made gun has shot the Panther without knowing the same. 3. He would further submit that since the Panther has died adjacent to the State High Way road and not inside any reserve forest, the Panther was hit by any vehicle and died on the spot. He would further submit that skin and teeth were not removed and the country made gun was not recovered and there was no evidence for firing and the petitioner is an innocent person and false case has been implicated against him and he is in judicial custody for more than 60 days and hence, he prayed for enlarging him on bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is going on and the post-mortem certificate reveals that there was gunshot injury on the neck of the body of Panther, which leads to the death. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed earlier application in Crl.O.p.(MD) No.10433 of 2011 and the same was dismissed on 16.08.2011, but, the petitioner has not mentioned the same in the present application and suppressing the facts, he filed the present application and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.I have considered their submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6.Perusal of the records would show that the petitioner has already filed an application for bail in Crl.O.P.(MD) NO.10433 of 2011 and the same was dismissed on 16.08.2011. But, the petitioner, without mentioning about the dismissal of the said application, has filed the present application without any change of circumstances. In the present petition, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that it is the first petition before this Court. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner suppressed the facts and filed this present application. Since, granting of bail is a discretionary one, it is the duty of the petitioner to put forth all the correct particulars. But, the petitioner has not done the same. Hence, I am of the view that suppressing of the facts is also one of the ground to dismiss the bail application and there is no changing circumstances and hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. sd/- 23/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, BOOTHA PANDY FOREST RANGE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, NAGERCOIL. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12395 of 2011 Date :23/09/2011 2P/4C RPB : 28.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/