Gafoor vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in OR No.7/2024 of the Karuvarakundu Forest Statin Office, Malapppuram, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 2(16), 2(20), 9, 39, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and under Section 27 (1) (e) (iv) of Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The petitioners were arrested on 06.03.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 05.03.2024, the accused trespassed into the reserve forest of Kalikavu Forest Station and hunted two wild sambar deer (Rusa unicular) by using a gun. Thereafter, they stored the meat in their house. Later, they cooked and ate the meat. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of the First Information Report would substantiate that none of the offences will be attracted against the petitioners. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 45 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. He also stated that the other accused is still at large. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that they had trespassed into the reserve forest area and hunted two sambar deer and, subsequently, cooked and ate the meat. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 45 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, and the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially on comprehending the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 45 days, that the recovery has been effected, and that the investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period, till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail;

(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].