The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a wildlife case. The court held that given the serious nature of the allegations and the petitioner's lack of cooperation, it was not a fit case for bail and noted his failure to obey previous directions to appear for interrogation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA
FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932
Bail Appl..No. 3519 of 2010()
--------------------------------O.R.NO. 14/2009 OF THANNITHODU FOREST STATION .................
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
----------------------------
U.M.SHANAVAS, AGED 40, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, UNNICHIRAYATHU HOUSE, 6TH MILE, CHAKKUPALAM P.O., KUMALI, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. ]RI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV
RESPONDENTS:
-------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VADASSERIKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.HEMA, J.
B.A. No. 3519 of 2010
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
The alleged offences are under Sections 27(1)(e), 2, 16(a),
(b), ©, 9, 29, 44, 48(a), 49, 49(a), 49(b) of Wildlife Protection Act. According to prosecution, 6th accused told 5th accused that he would pay an amount Rs. 75,000/-, if he could procure a wild animal by name 'Loris tardigradus' and this information was passed on to the various other accused. Consequent to this, first accused procured such a wild animal and he conveyed this information to few other accused. Before, he could inform the 6th accused, forest officials got information about the act and they arrested, second accused with the animal. Thereby, all accused nos. 1 to 6 committed various offences.
B.A. No. 3519 / 2010 2
application, the court, directed him to appear before the investigating officer for interrogation etc. But, he could not appear on the day fixed by the court, since he was sick. There was also a direction in the said order that if petitioner was interrogated and the learned Magistrate is satisfied of the same, his application for regular bail shall be disposed of preferably on the same day, on which, it is filed.
B.A. No. 3519 / 2010 3
No further application for anticipatory
bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter.
Petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving serious wildlife offences under the Wildlife Protection Act.
Whether the petitioner's failure to appear for interrogation without valid reason precludes granting bail.
U.M.SHANAVAS
STATE OF KERALA
K.HEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
