Dismissed

Jiji Chacko, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2018Bail Appl./7123/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the second accused in a wild life hunting case. The court dismissed the petition, relying on a recent precedent which held that filing a duplicate application without any material change in circumstances amounts to an abuse of the process of court.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed on the ground of abuse of process due to lack of change in circumstances.

Jiji Chacko, Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

Bail Appl..No. 7123 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

MONDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

Bail Appl..No. 7123 of 2018

¶8

CRIME NO. 7/2017 OF Peruvannamoozhi Forest Range Office , Kozhikode

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶10

JIJI CHACKO, AGED 31 YEARS S/O K.P. CHACKO, KEERISSERIYIL HOUSE, KAKKAYAM P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.P.T.MANOJ

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.

¶14

SMT.MAYA.M.N.-PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No. 7123 of 2018

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

The petitioner is the third accused in the case registered as O.R.No.7/2017 of the Peruvannamoozhy Forest Range under Sections 9, 31, 39, 42 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶21

The prosecution case is as follows: On the early morning of 14.11.2017, the Section Forest Officer, Kakkayam Section of the Peruvannamoozhy Forest Range, obtained reliable information that the first accused and some other persons had hunted wild animals and they would be bringing the meat of the animals to the house of the first accused. The forest officials led by the Section Forest Officer reached near the house of the first accused and hid near the compound wall facing the car porch of the house. At about 04.30 hours, the first accused came to the car porch in his car and the forest officials surrounded the car and obtained the key of the car from him. When they inspected the trunk of the car, they found the meat of wild animal and also knives in it. The forest officials tried to arrest the first accused. At that time, the

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 7123 of 2018

¶23

¶24

second and the third accused, who were accompanying the car of the first accused on a motorcycle, reached there. They attacked the forest officials with weapons. The forest officials had to withdraw from the place and during that time, the accused left the place. After sometime, with the assistance of police, the forest officers seized the meat and the knives from the car. On conducting search of the house, various animal articles including head and horns of Indian Gaur, Sambar deer and Barking deer were seized from the house. It is alleged that the accused have hunted wild animals and kept the meat in the house of the first accused.

¶25

The petitioner had earlier filed an application for anticipatory bail as B.A No.3663/2018 and it was dismissed by this Court on 14.06.2018. He has filed the present application on 16.10.2018.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

While dismissing the earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, this Court had observed as follows:

¶28

“Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary to find out the full details of the animals

¶29

Bail Appl..No. 7123 of 2018

¶30

¶31

allegedly hunted by him and the other accused...... In the instant case, ten kilograms of meat was seized from the car of the first accused. Another ten kilograms of meat was seized from his house. Trophies of wild animals were also seized from his house. There are circumstances to infer that the petitioner is a close associate of the first accused. The offences levelled against the accused are grave in nature. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case as a whole, especially the nature and gravity of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him the benefit of pre-arrest bail.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had received a notice dated 15.9.2018 from the Forest Range Officer, Peruvannamoozhy to appear before him. A copy of the aforesaid notice is produced along with the present application. It is also stated in the petition that the other accused in the case have been arrested and released on bail.

¶33

Relying upon the precedents on the point, in Pandi v. State of Kerala : 2018 (4) KLT 249, this Court has held that in the absence of any change in the circumstances of the fact situation of the case, a second application for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained and that filing such an application will be an abuse of the process of the court.

¶34

Bail Appl..No. 7123 of 2018

¶35

¶36

The two change of circumstances alleged by the

¶37

petitioner are the following: (1). The other accused in the case have been arrested and released on bail and (2). The petitioner had received a notice to appear before the Investigating Officer.

¶38

In my view, the aforesaid two circumstances pleaded by the petitioner cannot be considered as change in the circumstances of the case which would entitle the petitioner to get the benefit of pre-arrest bail. The application is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

In the result, the application is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

lsn

Jiji Chacko, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiji Chacko, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadeeja, Vs Abdul Nazer

E.M. Abraham Vs Claramma

Devassy Vs Mani

Prem Nazeer M. Vs State of Kerala

Rony Vs State of Kerala

Jahamgeer. M Vs State of Kerala