IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5654 of 2008() ----------------------------- OR.NO.5/08 OF KANNAVAM FOREST RANGE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. VACHALI PREMAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KOMMERI DESOM, KOLAYAD AMSOM. 2. THENIYADAN VINODAN, S/O. VIJAYAN, RESIDING -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE RENGE OFFICER, KANNAVAM FOREST RANGE, NADUMBOIL SECTION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5654 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 2(1)(16)(20) and (36), 9, 39(1)(b), (2), (3), 50(b), 51(1) read with 52 and Schedule III- 19 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. According to prosecution, on getting information that a Wild Pig was hunted and its meat was available in the property of first accused, Forest officials proceeded to the said place and found meat of Wild Pig in a bucket kept in the property of first accused. On seeing the Forest officials, certain persons gathered there and put the meat in the stream nearby. They also prevented the Forest officials from seizing the article and deter them from discharging the official duty. Police was informed and the police came to the spot and a crime was registered by the police against certain persons. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in the crime. They are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. There were several agitation by the local people since there was threat to the life and property from the wild animals and paper reports are produced in support of the BA.5654/08 2 contention. It is submitted that the incident did not occur as alleged. As per Section 11(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, if there is any attack from the wild animal, a person is entitled to even kill the animal and no offence can be said to have committed in such circumstance, it is submitted. Various paper reports are produced to show that there were agitations by the people calling for protection to their life and property from wild animals. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition. It was submitted that two crimes were registered in connection with the same incident. When the Forest officials went to the place of occurrence to detect the crime and they were prevented from seizing the meat of the Wild Pig. They were also deterred from discharging their official duty. An anticipatory bail application filed in connection with the other crime (police case) was dismissed by this court. Only 300 grams of meat could be seized from the place, since other portion of the meat was put in the stream nearby. 5. It is also pointed out that all the allegations regarding attack from wild animals etc. were raised only after registration of the crime. All the paper reports are subsequent to the date of occurrence, it is pointed out. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the animals attack to persons and properties only BA.5654/08 3 because they trespass into the forest area and disturb their existence. It is to protect such illegal trespass that these types of acts are made punishable under the various provisions of the Act. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegations made, anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and I perfectly understand the seriousness of the situation. Considering the gravity of offence allegedly committed, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It was pointed out that the crime was registered as early as on 10.8.2008 and petitioners were not available for investigation. The investigation is in a stand still. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether petitioners surrender or not, respondent is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any time. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.