High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunny vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 3 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 KL CK 0005

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 2(16), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39, 50, 51 · Arms Act, 1959 3(1), 25(1B)(a)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application Nos.7507 & 7509 Of 2023
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 · 388 words

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

1.

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is the 1st accused in OR No.18/2023 of Devikulam Forest Station, Idukki, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and also 1st accused in Crime No.736/2023 of Munnar Police Station, Idukki, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 3(1) and 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

3.

The prosecution case is that based on the confession statement of the petitioner, the Devikulam Forest Range Officer seized 12 bore-gun and cartridges from a building owned by KSEB in KDH village, Mattupatti Kara, Devikulam Grama Panchayath, and the skull of a buffalo and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner is in custody from 04.08.2023, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

6.

After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and taking note of the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the fact that he has been in custody since 04.08.2023, the recovery already effected, and since there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if released on bail the petitioner is likely to abscond, I hold that bail can be granted to the petitioner, despite antecedents reported against him.

Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses;

(iv) The petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail.

(v) If any of the conditions are violated, the court concerned will be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law;