Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19742
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
ABDUL KAREEM
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 9340 2022
S.RAJEEV, M.S.ANEER, V.VINAY PRERITH, PHILIP JOSEPH, SARATH K.P., ANILKUMAR C.R.
The court affirmed that the decision on bail should be made by the Magistrate, considering the nature of the offenses and the conduct of the accused.
Headnote:
Bail - Accused Absconding - Explosive Act, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act - Sections 9B(i)(b), 11(1)(I) - The court evaluated the seriousness of the offenses, absconding behavior of the petitioner, and concluded eligibility for bail rests with the learned Magistrate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a pending case, seeks bail concerning serious offenses involving injuries to a wild elephant linked to explosives concealed in a pineapple. The petitioner was absconding during investigation.
Issues: Whether the accused, who has been absconding during investigations, should be granted bail considering his health and the seriousness of the offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the seriousness of the offenses and the absconding behavior of the petitioner weigh heavily against granting bail without proper consideration by the Magistrate.
Final Decision: The petitioner is directed to approach the learned Magistrate for bail application consideration.
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2022 The petitioner is the accused No.1 in crime No.571/2020 of Mannarkkad Police Station, which is now pending as C.P. No.66/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mannarkkad. The aforesaid crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9B(i)(b) of Explosive Act and Section
11(1)(I) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 .
2. The prosecution case is that, on 25.05.2020, the forest officials found a wild elephant with injuries and according to the prosecution, the injuries sustained while the elephant attempted to consume a pineapple. It is revealed in the investigation that, the aforesaid pineapple was laded with explosives and it was done at the instance of the accused persons. As the petitioner was absconding even at the investigation stage, the final report was submitted showing him as absconded. Now, he expresses his willingness to surrender, but he seeks for a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application of the petitioner in the light of decision reported in Aman Preet Singh v. CBI [ AIR 2021 SC 4154 ] and further to direct the learned Magistrate to release on bail upon his appearance. He also places reliance on Annexure 1 and Annexure 1(a) medical certificates showing to establish his health condition.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand would seriously oppose the prayer sought for by the petitioner. The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that, the offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious and right from the inception he was absconding. It is pointed out that since the petitioner was not co-operating with the investigation or any other no proceedings, the orders as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is a matter which comes within the jurisdiction the learned Magistrate and therefore it is for the petitioner to approach the learned magistrate and raise all the contentions. An appropriate decision shall be taken by the learned Magistrate after evaluating the materials placed on record.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9340/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-I MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM MAULANA HOSPITAL DATED 20.10.2022 Annexure-I(a) THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM MAULANA HOSPITAL CARDIOLOGY DEPARTMENT Annexure-II A COPY OF THE PROCEEDING SHEET DATED
12.12.2022 IN CP NO 66/2022 OBTAINED FROM E-COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE, COURT MANNARKKAD
