High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashikh, S/o.Abdulla Koya vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 30 November 2022 · Citation: (2022) 11 KL CK 0347

HON’BLE JUDGES
Viju Abraham, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 2(16), 2(36), 9, 39(3)(a)(b), 50, 51
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 8087 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 616 words

Viju Abraham, J

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2.

Petitioner is arrayed as the 2nd accused in O.R. No. 04 of 2022 of Forest Range Office, Walayar registered for offences under Sections 2(16), 2(36), 9, 39(3)(a)(b), 50 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that on 24.02.2022, the RPF Intelligence Branch officials had restrained a person at Palakkad Junction Railway Station, who was found in possession of sand boa and further investigation revealed that accused 1 and 2 had jointly transported sand boa in the train.

4.

It is submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged. He has no connection with the offence and he has no connection with the items allegedly seized from the first accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in the above crime due to mistaken identity. He has got no criminal antecedents and is willing to co-operate with the investigation. Petitioner apprehends arrest and incarceration in the above-said crime.

5.

Learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that on the basis of the statement given by the 1st accused who was found in illegal possession of a sand boa that the petitioner is also involved in the said crime and it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner ran away from the scene and the evidence so far collected revealed that the petitioner is actively involved in the crime. The 1st accused is already apprehended.

6.

It is seen that the 1st accused is already arrested and the sand boa was also recovered from the possession of the 1st accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of the investigation and only a limited custody be granted for the same.

In the result, this application is allowed. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer in O.R. No. 04 of 2022 of Forest Range Office, Walayar on 07.12.2022 at 11 am and make himself available for interrogation on that day or any other day/s as directed by the investigating officer. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in O.R. No. 04 of 2022 of Forest Range Office, Walayar, he shall be produced before the Jurisdictional Court on the same day and shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court,

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in O.R. No. 04 of 2022 of Forest Range Office, Walayar as and when called for,

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to influence the defacto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in O.R. No. 04 of 2022 of Forest Range Office, Walayar,

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If  any  of  the  aforesaid  conditions  are  violated,  the investigating officer in O.R. No. 04 of 2022 of Forest Range Office, Walayar, may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the information if any given by the petitioner even when the petitioner is on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663).