High CourtsSingle Bench

Sarish vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 20 December 2021 · Citation: (2021) 12 KL CK 0145

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.S. Sudha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 2(1) (5), 9, 39, 49, 50, 51
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9188 Of 2021
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 · 403 words

C.S. Sudha, J

1.

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for per-arrest bail filed by the petitioner/accused in Crime no.17/2021 of Thodupuzha Forest Range Office alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 2(1) (5), 9, 39,49,50 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

2.

The prosecution case is that the Forest Officials on conducting a search of the house of the petitioner/accused, found three parakeet chicks and two Indian pea fowl chicks of six months and four months of age respectively, being bred in captivity. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections.

3.

The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation has not been completed.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the petitioner/accused is innocent of the offences alleged against him. The prosecution has no case that he had hunted these birds or that he had them illegally purchased from any other source. The petitioner is residing near a forest area. Occasionally wild birds do stray into his property and lay eggs. Later on when they are old enough, they fly away. It is also submitted that the petitioner/accused has no criminal antecedents.

5.

Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6.

On going through the copy of the O.R. produced along with this application, it is seen that the only allegation is that the petitioner/accused the above said birds were being bred in captivity. There is no case that he had hunted or illegally purchased it from any other source. The petitioner/accused has no criminal antecedents. Taking into account the nature of the offences alleged, custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused does not appear to be necessary.

Hence pre-arrest bail can be granted.

In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions :

(i) The petitioner in the event of his arrest in the aforesaid crime shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the latter till the final report is filed.

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and he shall not interfere with the investigation.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence(s) while on bail.