IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6598 of 2011() ----------------------------- (OR.NO.7/2011 OF PERUVANNAMUZHI FOREST RANGE, KOZHIKODE DISITRICT) .................... (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. DILEEP V.K., S/O.VELU, AGED 39 YEARS, KOLAKKATTIL HOUSE, KAKKAYAM P.O., KOORACHUNDU AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. SATHEESH K.R., S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KADAMKOTTIL HOUSE, KAKKAYAM P.O., KOORACHUNDU AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL SMT.BIMALA BABY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PERUVANNAMUZHI RANGE, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- B.A.No.6598 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are two among the accused involved in a crime registered for the offence under the Provisions of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Investigation of the crime is in progress. They have been implicated in the crime falsely on the statement recorded by accused numbers 1 to 3, who were apprehended with possession of meat of a wild boar, is the submission of the leaned counsel. To escape from their culpability they have falsely implicated the present petitioners also in the crime, is the further submission of the learned counsel. 2. Opposing the application, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is in the early stages, and the statements collected from one accused apprehended and also from other materials gathered by the investigating agency point to the culpability of the present petitioners also in the commission of the offences imputed. When that be discretionary releif of pre arrest bail may not be extended to them, as it is B.A.No.6598 of 2011 2 likely to affect the fair investigation of the crime, is the submission of the Public Prosecutor.. 3. Having regard to the provisions covered by the Wild Life Protection Act and the need to preserve wild life, the offences falling under the aforesaid Act have to be dealt with utmost seriousness, and as there is reason to doubt the culpability of the petitioners in the offence imputed against them. I find they are not entitled to pre arrest bail. The petition is dismissed. sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. rkc //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE