Courts may deny anticipatory bail when serious offenses are alleged and custodial interrogation is deemed necessary for a proper investigation.

O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The petitioners are accused Nos.6 to 14 in O.R. No.1/2010 of Azhutha Forest Range, Idukki.

2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 9, 27, 29, 31 and 32 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 18/2/2010, the accused persons, 14 in number, illegally trespassed into Periyar Tiger Reserve Sanctuary with all preparations for hunting. They were found engaged in fishing in Azhutha river within the Periyar Tiger Reserve Sanctuary. It was found that the accused persons were possessing two country guns, one head light and two bags containing all the necessary accessories for the use of the country guns and other gadgets. The articles for preparing food were also found in possession of the accused. On seeing the forest officials, accused Nos.6 to 14 ran away and escaped. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were arrested and they were remanded to judicial custody.

4. The offence alleged against the accused is very serious in nature. The very entry into the Periyar Tiger Reserve Sanctuary without permission constitutes an offence. The allegation is that not only the accused persons unlawfully entered into the Periyar Tiger Reserve Sanctuary, but they engaged themselves in all sorts of unauthorised activities. They were armed with country guns and all other necessary gadgets for a hunting in the Periyar Tiger Reserve Sanctuary.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent villagers and that there is no material to connect the petitioners with the offence.

6. I have gone through the Case Diary. I am not inclined to accept the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There are materials, prima facie, to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners were involved in the offence. In these circumstances, I do not think that the extraordinary discretionary remedy under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted in favour of the petitioners.

Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm