JUDGMENT :

B. PUGALENDHI, J.

Prayer: For Bail in Crime No. 95 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent police.

1. The petitioner/first accused, who was arrested for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39(1), 50, 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, in Crime No. 95 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, on a secret information, proceeded to the petitioner's coconut grove on 11.04.2021, at about 14.00 hours, at Nethaji Nagar. On seeing the police party, the petitioner and others escaped. The police gave a chase and apprehended one Thangachamy/third accused. The police made a search of the place and found preserved and un-preserved sea cucumber. A white color Maruti Omni van, bearing Registration No. TN-01-R-3236, was found, with 13 sacks of sea cucumbers, 12 bags each with 40 kg and one bag with 20 kg of sea cucumber. They also found a Bolero Maxi Truck Mahindra Plus, bearing Registration No. TN-65-T-5338, with 20 sacks each containing 50 kg of sea cucumbers. Two two wheelers, bearing Registration Nos. RN-62-AM-3024 and TN-63-BX-7967 were found, with 25 kg and 26 kg of sea cucumber, respectively. That apart, they have also found 565 kg of preserved sea cucumber and 689 kg of un-preserved sea cucumber. Totally, they found 2800 kg of sea cucumber. Hence, the case.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would contend that as per Section 55 (1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, only the forest officials are empowered to file a complaint under this Act and the respondent police has no power to file a charge sheet or to register a complaint. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a heart patient and taking treatment in the prison hospital. Therefore, he seeks for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly opposed for the grant of bail. He submitted that this is the second petition for bail and the earlier petition in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 9011 of 2021, was dismissed by this Court on 16.07.2021. The petitioner is having 13 previous cases to his credit, for violating the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. In this case, the accused have illegally possessed 2800 kg of sea cucumber, worth about Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. There is no change in circumstances and therefore, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

5. The parameters of granting bail have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases.

5.1. In Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the factors that must guide the exercise of the power to grant bail in the following terms:

“3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order - but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.

4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind