The court dismissed the bail application due to serious allegations of premeditated wildlife crimes, necessitating custodial interrogation.

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicants are the accused Nos.3 and 4 in OR. No.3/2026 of Irulam Forest Station, Waynad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 2 (16), 9, 29, 31, 39(1), (2) & (3) of the Wildlife Protection Act , 1972.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

8.2.2026 at about 3 am, the applicants trespassed into the Beenachi Estate owned by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, within the jurisdiction of Irulam Forest Station under the Chethalath Range of South Wayanad Division, shot and killed a porcupine (Hystrix indica), a species included in Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act , 1972, by using an illegal firearm and converted the animal into meat and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Smt. Celine Joseph, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri. M.C. Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicants' intentional criminal acts, and if they are released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-

arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power under Section 482 of BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicants is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. The investigation conducted so far reveals the active involvement of the applicants in the crime. Moreover, the remnants are yet to be recovered.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicants influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if they are released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-