Bail Granted in Leopard Killing Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence on Trap's Location: Kerala High Court - 2025-10-09

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail to 70-Year-Old Accused in Leopard Killing Case, Cites Lack of Evidence

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, has granted bail to a 70-year-old man accused of killing a leopard by laying a cable trap. The court's decision hinged on the prosecution's failure to present prima facie evidence conclusively proving that the trap was laid within a reserve forest, as alleged.

Case Background

The petitioner, Baby V J., was arrested on September 25, 2025, in connection with a case registered by the Pariyaram Forest Range Office, Thrissur. The prosecution alleged that on September 23, 2025, the petitioner killed a leopard, an animal protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, by using a cable trap inside a reserve forest. He was charged under section 27(I)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, and Sections 2(16), 9, and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Arguments in Court

Petitioner's Stance: The counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Manumon A., vehemently argued that the allegations were false and that his client had been wrongly implicated. He contended that the petitioner was made a scapegoat after a wild animal was found with a trap on its leg. The defense's central argument was the complete absence of material evidence to prove the trap was laid inside a reserve forest, a crucial element of the prosecution's case.

Prosecution's Stance: Sri. Prasanth M P., the Learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application, highlighting the gravity of the offense. He emphasized that a protected wild animal had been killed within a reserve forest and argued that since the petitioner was only recently arrested, his continued detention was necessary for the investigation.

Court's Pivotal Observations

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, in his order, pointed out a significant gap in the prosecution's initial case. The court observed that while the petitioner was alleged to have laid a trap, the evidence was lacking on two critical points: who laid the trap and, more importantly, where it was laid.

The judgment noted, "Though the prosecution alleges that the cable trap was kept in a reserve forest, prima facie, there are no materials available to indicate as to who had laid the cable trap or the place where the trap was laid."

The court took several factors into consideration for granting bail: - The period of custody already undergone by the petitioner since his arrest. - The petitioner's advanced age of seventy years. - The lack of prima facie material to substantiate the prosecution's claim about the location of the trap.

The court stated, "In such circumstances, taking into reckoning the period of custody already undergone and also the fact that the petitioner is seventy years old... I am of the view that further detention is not necessary."

Final Decision and Conditions

The High Court allowed the bail application, ordering the release of Baby V J. on the execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties. The bail is subject to several conditions, including cooperating with the investigation, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and refraining from committing similar offenses while on bail. The jurisdictional court is empowered to modify these conditions if necessary.