IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 509 of 2008() ---------------------------- O.R.NO.2/2008 OF KODUMPUZHA FOREST RANGE OFFICER : PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED --------------------------------------- JEBY JOHN, S/O.JOHN, PANAKKAL HOUSE, PAZHANJI, KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.509 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Wild Life Protection Act. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner had got a consignment of 56 parrots brought from Bangalore for eventual transportation to his establishment by name Golden Aquarium at Kunnamkulam. The parrots were brought in a contract carriage bus operating on the route. From that, it was unloaded into the vehicle of the second accused. The second accused, in the course of interrogation, furnished information to the forest officials that he was engaged in the activity of transportation of the parrots to the Golden Aquarium of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has been arrayed as the first accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has nothing to do with the second accused. The second accused must have been prevailed upon by some of his business rivalries to give the name of the petitioner as the person to whom the consignment was B.A.No.509/08 2 sent. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation so far clearly reveals the culpable involvement of the petitioner in the transportation of parrots in violation of the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act. The petitioner does not, at any rate, deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. Detailed interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the details of the crime. 4. The case diary has been placed before me. I have perused the same. I have, in particular, gone through the confession statement of the second accused. I shall not, at this early stage, to express any opinion on the contentions raised or about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that having considered all the relevant inputs, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve invocation of the the extraordinary equitable discretion B.A.No.509/08 3 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or 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 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.509/08 4 B.A.No.509/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007