Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24795
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
RAHUL N – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 10371 2023
Bail can be granted if there is no substantiated fear of absconding or tampering with evidence, reflecting the court's balancing of rights and the necessity of custody.
Headnote:
Bail - Wild Life Protection Act - Sections 2, 9, 39, 44, 49, 50, 51, 57 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act to assess the legality of bail, emphasizing the requirement of substantial grounds for the denial of bail and the absence of flight risk.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners seek bail for being accused of possessing ambergris without authorization, violating multiple sections of the Wild Life Protection Act. They were arrested following a seizure by Revenue Intelligence officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail, citing the petitioners' prolonged custody since their arrest without indication of flight risk, significant progress in investigation, and lack of opposition from the prosecution regarding potential absconding.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given the charges under the Wild Life Protection Act and their extended custody.
Ratio Decidendi: Denial of bail must be substantiated by reasons such as flight risk or tampering with evidence, neither of which were adequately demonstrated in this case.
Final Decision: Bail granted to the petitioners under specified conditions.
O R D E R
The petitioners have filed this application seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioners are the 1st and 2nd accused in O.R. No.5 of 2023 of Mekkappala Forest Station of Kodanad Range Office for having committed offences punishable under Sections 2 (16)(32),9,39,44,49(A), (B),50,51(1),1(A) and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act .
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on
21.10.2023, officials of Revenue Intelligence detained two persons in room No.101 of Metro Residency Lodge at Karukappilli Junction with unauthorised possession of ambergris of sperm whales, which is an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act . Thereby, the Revenue Officials intimated the matter to the Forest Officials, and they proceeded to the spot and seized 8.71 kgs of Ambergris. Thus, the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences as alleged.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would say that the petitioners are totally innocent and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioners have been in custody since 21.10.2023, and continued custody of the petitioners is unnecessary.
5. The learned public prosecutor opposed the petition and points out that the petitioners are not entitled to get bail.
6. After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and taking into account the fact that petitioners have been in custody since 21.10.2023, the fact that recovery has been effected and investigation has progressed considerably and also since there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if they are released on bail, the petitioners are likely to abscond, I hold that bail can be granted to the petitioners.
Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the petitioners are granted bail subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required to do so.
(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.
(iv) The petitioners shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail.
(v) If any of the conditions are violated, the court concerned shall be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law.
