Confession statements recorded by officers not empowered to do so are inadmissible in evidence.

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre- arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in O.R No.19/2023 of the Devikulam Forest Range, Idukki, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 2(16),2(35),2(36), 9, 39, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act,1972 (in short, ‘Act’).

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 5.8.2023 at about 11.45 p.m, the forest officials heard a gun shot in the forest area. Consequently, they arrested the accused 2 and 3 from the above area. During their interrogation, they confessed that the first petitioner/first accused was also involved in the crime.

Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

B.A No.7408 of 2023

4. Heard; SriLatheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri, Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

5. Sri.Latheesh Sebastian strenuously argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime.

Other than for the alleged confession statements of the accused 2 and 3. there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the crime. The so called confession statements are inadmissible in evidence, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Luca Beltrami and Others v. State of Kerala, [2020 (4) KHC 603], Prakashan v. State of Kerala [2023 (1) KHC 536] and Gopi v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC 18]. He also relied on the provisions under Section 50 of the Act, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and Section 25(3) of the Evidence Act, to fortify his contention that a confession recorded by a Forest Officer cannot be used in evidence. According to him, the whole case set up by the prosecution, against the petitioner, based on the B.A No.7408 of 2023 alleged confession of the accused 2 and 3 is a nullity as held by this Court in Prakasan’s case. He further contended that the petitioner is the law abiding citizen and have no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. They are also willing to co- operate with the investigation.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has also filed a bail objection report.

7. The first accused was implicated on the basis of the confession made by the accused 2 and 3 and consequently he was arrested. Therefore, the petitioner has been implicated, on the alleged confession made by the accused 2 and 3.

8. Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, reads as follows:-

50. Power of entry, search, arrest and detention.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf 1 [or the B.A No.7408 of 2023 Management Authority or any officer authorised by the Management Authority] or the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer or any forest officer or any police officer not below the rank of a sub- inspector 2 [or any customs officer not below the rank of an inspector or any officer of the coast guard not below the rank of an Assistant Commandant], may, if he has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence against this Act,— (a) require any such person to produce for inspection any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy or 3 [trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant or part or derivative thereof [or scheduled specimen]] in his control, custody or possession, or any licence, permit or other document granted to him or required to be kept by him under the provisions of this Act;

(b) stop any vehicle or vessel in order to conduct search or inquiry or enter upon and search any premises, land, vehicle or vessel, in the o