Binu C.S And Ors vs State Of Kerala

The applicants are accused Nos. 4 and 5 in O.R.No.1 of 2021 of Mankulam Forest Station, Idukki, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

On 18.01.2021, at about 3.00 PM, the 1st accused laid a snare and trapped a spotted leopard and on 20.01.2021, it died in the trap. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 and 2 removed the skin, nails and teeth of the leopard and extracted the meat from the leopard and allegedly consumed a part of it and sold the remaining meat to accused Nos. 3 to 5. The applicants are among the persons who had purchased the meat. The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true. The allegation is that the 1st accused had sold the meat for Rs.300/- per Kg and that the applicants have also purchased some meat. They plead that they are innocent and they had nothing to do with the alleged snaring of the leopard and also that they do not have any criminal antecedents. And, hence, they may be released on bail. They were arrested on 22.01.2021.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are confession statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 duly recorded by an authorised officer indicating the involvement of the applicants, who had purchased the meat of the leopard for remuneration. It is stated that the 1st accused had also shown a photograph of the leopard from this mobile phone to convince the applicants to purchase the meat. Under the circumstances, the complicity of the applicants is well established. And, therefore, they are not entitled to bail in a grave offence coming under the Wild Life Act.

After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that the applicants are not persons having any criminal antecedents of similar nature. They are purchasers of the meat. How far the confession statements of accused Nos.1 and 2, who had actually ensnared the leopard, killed it and distributed the meat, could be believed is a matter of evidence is to be decided by the trial court during trial. The applicants have nothing to do with the alleged killing of the leopard. But, consuming the meat of the leopard, with the knowledge that it is a prohibited meat is also an offence. And, therefore, the complicity of the applicants cannot be discounted. However, the applicants have been in custody from 22.01.2021 onwards and further detention may not be necessary, since nothing is to be recovered from them. There is no possibility of their absconding or fleeing from justice.

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on the execution of bonds for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only), each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following further conditions:

(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

(ii) They shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

(iii) They shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

The bail application is allowed.