IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2094 of 2008() ----------------------------- OR.1/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER : 2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------- SHAJI, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 32 YEARS, KANHIRATHINKAL HOUSE, VAYATHOOR AMSOM, ULICKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ASST. WILD LIFE WARDEN, ARALAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 2094 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. Altogether there are five accused persons. They face allegations under the Wild Life Protection Act. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons on 3.3.2008 had trespassed into the wild life sanctuary with the intention of hunting. The wild life officials, on coming to know of the incident, came to the scene and apprehended one of the miscreants/A1. The others, including the petitioner, allegedly took to their heels and could not be arrested. The first accused was arrested and his statement recorded. The earliest and the contemporaneous documents do reveal that the first accused has given the name of the petitioner herein as one of the miscreants. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. According to the the petitioner, the first B.A.No. 2094 of 2008 2 accused has some animosity against him and that could be the only reason why he may have given, if at all he had given, the name of the petitioner to the detecting officials. The petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there are no circumstances whatsoever at the moment to conclude that the allegations raised against the petitioner are not justified or that the first accused had made such statement to the officials on account of any prior animosity which he entertained towards the petitioner herein/A2. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail the usual and normal course. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. It is true that the 5th accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per order in B.A. 1955 of 2008. But as the learned Prosecutor rightly points out the allegations against the said accused are totally different and are not identical to the allegations raised against the petitioner. The only B.A.No. 2094 of 2008 3 allegation raised against the 5th accused is that he had dropped the other accused at a certain place, from where the other miscreants proceeded to commit the offence. The grant of anticipatory bail to the said co- accused cannot confer on the petitioner any right to claim anticipatory bail. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm