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

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4834

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHIRCY V., J
ABDUL RASHEED K M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./8505/2021



Advocates:
M.SASINDRAN, SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN, C.N.PRABHAAKARAN

Bail can be granted even in serious wildlife offence cases, provided the accused have been in custody for an extended period without the need for further detention.

Headnote:

Bail - Wildlife Offences - Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure; Sections 2, 9, 39, 44, 50, 51, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Sections 7, 24, 55, Biological Diversity Act, 2002 - The court granted bail, considering the duration of custody, investigation progress, and application of wildlife and biodiversity laws.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were accused of unauthorized possession of 'ambergris' from an endangered species. They were arrested on 20.10.2021, with a significant black-market value of the substance, leading to charges under various provisions of wildlife and biodiversity laws.

Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted bail given the serious charges under wildlife protection laws and the duration of their custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the ongoing investigation did not necessitate further detention, considering the petitioners had already endured significant time in custody and that future cooperation could be ensured through bail conditions.

Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioners with stipulated conditions.

ORDER

Application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

2. The petitioners are the accused in O.R.No.9 of 2021 of Taliparamba Forest Range, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 2 (16) (32), 9, 39, 44, 49(A)(B), 50, 51 (1), 1(A), 52, 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act , 1972 and Section 7 , 24, 55(2) read with 2(c)(f)(n) of the Biological Diversity Act , 2002.

3. They have been in custody since 20.10.2021.

4. The allegation is that on 20.10.2021 the accused were found in unauthorized possession of 'ambergris' by the forest officials and transporting through Mathamangalam-Koyipra road for the purpose of sale, in a vehicle bearing registration No.KL 13 Y 0333. The same is included in Serial No.5A in Schedule II Part II of Wildlife (Protection) Act and is coming under protected species. It was seized from the possession of the petitioners by the forest officials. The value of the same in black market is Rs.30 Crores and the sale of 'Ambergris' which is used for making perfumes is prohibited by law. Thereby they have committed the aforesaid offences.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated in the case. Hence, this application for regular bail.

7. But this application is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is contended that the the article seized by the forest officials is of an endangered species and the approximate value per kilogram would be Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-.

8. The materials so far collected by the investigating agency would show that 'Ambergris' is a solid waxy substance originated in the intestines of the sperm whale, an endangered marine mammal and in fact a very costly item, was recovered from the petitioners. Definitely the source has to be traced out as it has been called as the treasure of the sea and floating gold.

9. Moreover now the investigation of the case has progressed considerably and so further detention of this petitioner is found absolutely unnecessary.

10. Considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioners in judicial custody , the present stage of investigation and the other facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am inclined to release them on bail subject to the following conditions.

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing, till filing of the final report.

(iii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional court is at liberty to cancel the bail 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
whatsapp-icon Back to top