Shajan vs State Of Kerala

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioners herein are the 3rd and 4th accused in O.R.No.1 of 2018 of the Neriamangalam Injithotty Forest Station registered under Sections 2(16)a, b,c, 2(33), 2(35), 9,39, 49, 59 (1)b, c, and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

Information was received by the Range Forest Officer of the Neriamangalam Forest Range that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid Crime had killed a wild Boar by trapping it in an unused well in the property of the 1st accused. They are alleged to have lifted the wild Boar from the well and butchered it using bill hook. They then invited the petitioners who came in a Jeep bearing Reg. No. KL-B-7551. Portion of the meat was cooked and it was shared with the petitioners. The 2nd accused is alleged to have sold substantial portions of the meat to the petitioners after receiving a sum of Rs.2000/-. Instructions were also given to the petitioners by the 2nd accused to hand over a portion of the meat to the 5th accused, who is the brother of the 2nd accused. It was thereafter that the forest officers had raided the house of 1st accused and detected the offence.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that they are innocent. According to the learned counsel, even as per the prosecution version, the animal was hunted and killed by accused Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners herein have no role in the acts of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that the allegations that they have purchased meat from accused Nos. 1 and 2 and portion of the same was handed over to the 5th accused is without basis. According to the learned counsel, the animal which was hunted by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 comes under Schedule III of the Act and the offence made out against the petitioners are under Section 49 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. It is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents and there cannot be any apprehension that they would not be available at the stage of trial.

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the investigation conducted till date reveals that the petitioners herein had also an active role to play in the commission of the offence. A Jeep was used by the accused for committing the offence under the Act and its seizure is inevitable for the investigation to proceed further.

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. On a perusal of the case diary, it appears that that there are materials connecting the petitioners with the violation of Section 49 of the Act. The Jeep bearing Reg. No.KL-B-7551 was allegedly used by the petitioners for transporting a portion of the meat. The records do not reveal that the petitioners had any role in the killing of the animal. In that view of the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners does not appear to be necessitous. However, they will have to produce the Jeep which was used for transporting the meat before the Range Officer or the officer, who is presently investigating the Crime. The said officer will be at liberty to proceed with the vehicle in accordance with law.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. The petitioners shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. They shall also produce the Jeep, which was used for the commission of the offence. Their arrest shall be recorded and the officer will be at liberty to record the statement of the petitioners as envisaged under law. Thereafter, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

i)The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

ii)The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer nor shall they tamper with the evidence.

iii)The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

iv) The petitioners shall not leave India without seeking the prior permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.