Hyderali C.T vs State Of Kerala

Viju Abraham, J.

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

Petitioner is the 5th accused in O.R.No.5 of 2022 of Palakkayam Forest Station in Mannarkkad Forest Range, alleging offences punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and under Sections 9, 39, 44, 48A, 50 and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

The allegation, in short, is that on 07-11-2022, three days prior to the registration of the present crime, accused Nos.4 and 5 trespassed into the Reserve Forest and hunted an Indian Gaur/Bison and the accused Nos.1 to 3 helped the other accused to transport the meat and in distribution of the same. The said crime was registered upon getting a secret information that in the house of one Ramdas, S/o.Sivadasan, there is the meat of Indian Bison, and the investigating officer proceeded to the house of the said Ramdas upon getting a search warrant. It is alleged that from the house of the said Ramdas, 500 grams of cooked meat was seized. The said person was arrested and according to his confession statement, another person Murali was also arrested. After the arrest of these two persons, O.R.No.5 of 2022 was registered. According to the confession statements recorded on 11-11- 2022, of accused Nos. 1 and 2, the 4th accused one Faisal, who belongs to the same area as that of accused Nos. 1 and 2, had telephoned accused Nos. 1 and 2 to come with the autorickshaw owned by the first accused near a plantation owned by one Balu. Accordingly, accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with another person one Sura, went to the place as directed by the 4th accused and one portion of the meat in a plastic bag was transported to the house of Faisal in the autorickshaw and the other portion of the meat was transported in another Kia Sonnet Car by the 4th accused Faisal. It is alleged that a portion of the meat was given to the accused Nos. 1 to 3. According to the confession statement, there was another person, to whom the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have no previous acquaintance with, one Kunhippa in the company of Faisal along with a gun. It is submitted that on the further search of the house of Murali, nothing was recovered and on the search conducted in the house of Faizal, 450 Grams of cooked meat was seized. It is further alleged that from the house of the petitioner, 500 grams of cooked meat was seized. It is submitted that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged crime. The petitioner is residing at Thazhekkode more than 60 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. The petitioner has no acquaintance with accused Nos. 1 and 2. Even the killing of the Bison, is not proved, as no parts of the body, horn or head or anything was recovered by the Forest officials, so as to allege that there was trespass into the reserve forest and hunting of an Indian Bison. It is also submitted that there is nothing to show that the seized cooked meat is that of a Bison.

Learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the petitioner has an active role in the commission of the offence. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in their statements categorically stated about the role and the participation of the petitioner in the alleged offence and identified the petitioner when the photograph was shown and the witness also stated that the petitioner was in possession of a gun. As part of the investigation, the call data was obtained and verified which revealed the presence of all the accused on the suspected hunting date and there were multiple phone calls among the accused. It is also further submitted that the hunting location was identified and the remains of the killed animal were also recovered. The wild animal which got hunted is Gaur also known as Indian Bison, a schedule I animal as per Wildlife Protection Act and the said animal has been listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List since 1986. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that custodial interrogation is necessary.

The investigation is only at the initial stage. The allegation against the accused persons is serious in nature. The investigation so far conducted and the details collected prima facie reveal the role of the petitioner. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of the investigation. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application is disposed of as follows:-

It is for the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day. If an application for bail is filed with advance copy to the Public Prosecutor, the jurisdictional Magistrate may consider the bail application preferably on the very same day.