Allowed

Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 May 2014Bail Appl./2664/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons charged with consuming wild animal meat under the Wild Life Protection Act. The court held that since there was no allegation of poaching and no criminal antecedents, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to deposit of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, regular reporting to the investigating officer, non-tampering with evidence, availability for interrogation, and no furthe

Satheesh Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2014/30TH VAISAKHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2664 of 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 746/2014 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 29-03-2014

¶7

CRIME NO. 1/2014 OF NELLIAMPATHY FOREST RANGE OFFICE , PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3 TO 6:

¶9

SATHEESH, AGED 32 YEARS

¶10

S/O.KUTTAN, NELLIKKATTU PARAMBU HOUSE

¶11

N.S.S COLLEGE P.O., NEMMARA, PALAKKAD

¶12

DILEEPKUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, KUNNAMKAD HOUSE, KARIMKULAM

¶13

THIRUVAZHIYAD P.O., NEMMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶14

BABU, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, KARIMKULAM, THIRUVAZHIYAD P.O. NEMMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶15

R.RAJESH, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, KARIMKULAM, THIRUVAZHIYAD P.O. NEMMARA, PALAKKAD

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶17

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶18

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE FOREST OFFICER NELLIYAMPATHY FOREST RANGE.

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA R.

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶22

¶23

B.A. No.2664 of 2014

¶24

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2014

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶27

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶28

Petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 6 in O.R.

¶29

No.1/2014 of Nelliyampathy Forest Range registered for the offences punishable under Sections 2(1), 2(2), 2(11), 2(16), 2(22), 2(31), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(A), 49(B), 50, 51 and 56 of the Wild Life Protection Act.

¶30

The allegation against the petitioners is that they were invited by A1 and A2 and they were supplied with cooked meat of hedgehog, a wild animal, and knowingly they have consumed the meat.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶32

BA.2664/2014

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the CD. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they had consumed the cooked meat of a wild animal supplied by A1 and A2. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the second accused is involved in a series of similar cases wherein wild animals were shot dead. There is no allegation against the petitioners that they have poached or hunted any wild animal. No criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the present stage of investigation and the absence of criminal antecedents against the petitioners, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for the continued investigation of this case. Matters being so, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.

¶35

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed and

¶36

BA.2664/2014

¶37

: 3 :

¶38

the investigating officer or such other officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioners, is directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest on each of them executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶39

(i) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays and Fridays, commencing from 27.05.2014 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.

¶40

(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶41

(iii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶42

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

¶43

BA.2664/2014

¶44

: 4 :

¶45

It is made clear that the violation of any of the

¶46

conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of

¶47

bail.

¶48

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶49

aks/20/05

¶50

// True Copy //

¶51

PA to Judge

Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raman Vs State of Kerala

Silvy George Vs Anna Joseph

Kurian Vs State of Kerala

Harikrishnan K S Vs State of Kerala

Nazir Ahmed Vs State of Kerala

Avinash @ Syam Vs State of Kerala