HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
MATHEW P.J – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 10659 2022
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure Section 438 - The Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438, emphasizing cooperation with the investigation while weighing the seriousness of the alleged offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, sought anticipatory bail, claiming innocence after a wild pig died from electrocution attributed to his actions. The prosecution highlighted potential non-compliance with court orders, while the defence asserted cooperation with the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged crimes but took into account the petitioner's age and willingness to cooperate with the investigation while allowing anticipatory bail with conditions.
Issues: The core issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail given the allegations and his cooperation with investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the allegations' gravity against the petitioner's age and cooperative stance, establishing that anticipatory bail was appropriate under these circumstances.
Final Decision: Anticipatory bail granted subject to specified conditions.
ORDER
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2023 This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , seeking pre-arrest bail and the petitioner is the sole accused in O.R. No. 3/2022 of Mayannoor Forest Range, Thrissur.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Perused the case diary and materials produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 2 (2) (16) (20) (35) (36), 9, 39(1) and 51(1) of Wild Life (Protection ) Act, 1972. The specific case of the prosecution is that, on 08.12.2022, Forest Officers have detected the death of a wild pig by electrocution and later investigation revealed that the electrocution was the contribution of the petitioner. On the said premise, the above said offences are alleged to be committed by the petitioner.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner who is aged 70 years is an innocent person and he also has lease hold properties nearby the place of occurrence. Since there had been continuous destruction of agricultural crops by the wild pig, somebody in the area drawn electric line and as a result of the same, wild pig died and the petitioner is innocent. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for grant of anticipatory bail, with offer to co-operate with the investigation.
5. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, the petitioner has not even abide the order of this Court to appear before the Investigating Officer on 06.01.2023 and the report of the Investigating Officer is to that effect. Highlighting the seriousness of the offences, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed a letter dated 09.01.2023 issued by the Range Forest Officer, Wadakkanchery Range, showing that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 06.01.2023 and he was directed to appear on 12.01.2023, since the Investigating Officer was engaged otherwise. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the petitioner had not surrendered on 06.01.2023, as directed by this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he surrendered on 12.01.2023 also.
7. In this crime, the wild pig died in consequence of electrocution. The same is a serious offence. Since the place of occurrence is in the middle of the rice field, the identity of the person who contributed electrocution is a matter of effective investigation. It is difficult to rule out the involvement of the petitioner also.
8. The petitioner is aged 70 years. Having appraised the above facts, on directing the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and to co-operate with the investigation, the petitioner is liable to be released on anticipatory bail on conditions.
Therefore, this petition stands allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail on conditions:
i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner and record his statement, if necessary. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of surrender itself.
ii. On such production, Jurisdictional Court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each, by himself and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.
iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.
iv. The petitioner, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.
v. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.