SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 58623

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
YOHANNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./1345/2018



Advocates:
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.), SRI.P.M.RAFIQ, SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, SRI.AJEESH K.SASI, SRI.V.C.SARATH, SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN, SRI.C.JAYAKIRAN, SMT.POOJA PANKAJ

Anticipatory bail may be granted when previous judicial orders exist, and further custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary.

Headnote:

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 438; Wildlife Protection Act - Sections 9, 11, 39, 51 - Summary: The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438, considering the gravity of allegations, prior decision, and petitioners' cooperation with the investigation while referencing provisions on wildlife protection.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a father and son, were accused of possessing meat of a protected wild animal, leading to a crime registration. They sought anticipatory bail as analysis results confirmed the meat was that of an Indian spotted deer.

Issues: The main issue involved whether the custodial interrogation of the accused was warranted given the past bail order and the current stage of the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that anticipatory bail is justified in light of previous orders and the nature of the allegations, favoring cooperation over custodial interrogation.

Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was allowed with conditions.

ORDER

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

2. Petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in O.R.

No.2/2014 of the Ponganamkad Forest Station registered under Sections 9 , 11, 39, 51 of Wildlife Protection Act .

3. The petitioners are father and son respectively and on

27.2.2014, an inspection was conducted in their house by the Forest officers attached to the Ponganamkad Forest Station. They are alleged to have seized meat of a wild pig secreted inside the house. On a crime being registered, the petitioners approached this Court and sought for an order of anticipatory bail. By Annexure A order dated 7.4.2014, the application was allowed and they were ordered to be released. The said order was granted as it was reported that the report of analysis of the meat had not yet been received from the Rajiv Gandhi Centre of Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram.

4. It appears that the report has now been received and it is reported that the meat is that of an Indian spotted deer. The aforesaid animal is included in the Schedule III of the Wildlife Protection Act , 1972.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to Annexure-A order of this Court, the petitioners had surrendered before the Investigating Officer and they were thoroughly interrogated. It is submitted that the crime was registered in the year 2014 and the petitioners would be subjected to gross hardship, if they are now remanded.

6. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the case diary.

7. After having considered the nature and gravity of the allegations and the sequence of events and also the fact that the petitioners were earlier granted Annexure-A order, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners at this stage is uncalled for.

8. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty 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 one month 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.

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

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top