The Court dismissed anticipatory bail applications filed by Sijo Mathew in cases involving wildlife poaching and theft of trap cameras. Relying on precedents, Justice Ashok Menon refused bail due to the grave nature of forest crimes and the risk of encouraging similar offenses, directing the applicant to surrender within two weeks.
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 MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.6065 OF 2020
O.R. NO.8/2020 OF IRULAM FOREST STATION , WAYANAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SIJO MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, S.O. MATHEW, MANAGER, ISSAC'S COFFEE PLANTATION, PAMBRA, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT PIN-673592
BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN – SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6088/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.6065 & 6088 OF 2020
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.6088 OF 2020
CRIME NO.656/2020 OF KENICHIRA POLICE STATION , WAYANAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SIJO MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, S.O. MATHEW, MANAGER, ISSAC'S COFFEE PLANTATION, PAMBRA, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT PIN-673592
BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AJITH MURALI-PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6065/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.6065 & 6088 OF 2020
3
COMMON ORDER
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2020
APPLICATIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
The applicant is the 3rd accused in O.R No.8 of 2020 of Irulam Forest Station, Wayanad District, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 50, 51 read with Section 2(16), 2(20), 2(35) and 2(36) of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and he is also an accused in Crime No. 656 of 2020 of Kenichira Police Station, Wayanad, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 379 of the IPC. He has filed B.A.No.6065 of 2020 for an anticipatory bail in O.R.No. 8 of 2020 of Forest Station and B.A.No.6088 of 2020 is filed by him for an anticipatory bail in Crime No.656 of 2020. Both the cases are connected to each other and that is why it is being disposed of by a common order.
B.A.Nos.6065 & 6088 OF 2020
wild animals. Guns and bullets were also allegedly entrusted to them by the applicant. The applicant allegedly wanted to provide wild meat to the owner of the Estate, who had come there and in order to oblige him, he engaged persons to hunt down wild animals. When the persons had allegedly gone hunting animals in the forest, they saw trap cameras installed by the Forest department for taking photographs of wild animals. Realising that, the cameras would have captured the pictures of the persons, who were involved in poaching, he gave specific directions to them to steal those cameras, and accordingly, those cameras were lifted, brought to the Estate and after the applicant allegedly removed the memory card, the cameras were directed to be destroyed. And, thus he committed theft of camera for which Crime No.656 of 2020 was registered at the Kenichira Police Station, while for hunting down wild animals O.R.No.8 of 2020 has been registered at the Irulam Forest Station.
B.A.Nos.6065 & 6088 OF 2020
5
venison was cooked and distributed among the applicant, the owner of the Estate, as also the others. The applicant states that he has been implicated in these two crimes solely on the basis of confession statements given by the co-accused. There is no other material seized or collected by the Investigating officers, to prove his complicity. It is also stated that confession statements cannot be relied upon unless there is corroborative evidence to substantiate the prosecution case. He, therefore, seeks anticipatory bail in these two crimes.
and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for bail stating the applicant is a person, who has got criminal antecedents. He is involved in several Forest crimes and also Abkari crimes. It is also stated that it is not the confession statement alone that led to his accusation. Specific materials were collected such as carcasses of deer and statements of witnesses which led to the implication of the applicant. It is stated that statements of witnesses have been recorded. There are materials to show that, the applicant is a person who had instigated the poaching
B.A.Nos.6065 & 6088 OF 2020
of the wild animals. And, therefore, he cannot be granted the relief of anticipatory bail in these cases.
B.A.Nos.6065 & 6088 OF 2020
therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. I also rely upon the decisions of this Court in Ramesh and Others v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KHC 745] and Sulaiman v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KHC 195] in support of the findings.
The applications for anticipatory bail are therefore dismissed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer in both these cases within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation and recovery, if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court at the earliest, where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail which shall be preferably considered and disposed of on the very same date.
Sd/ASHOK MENON
NR/16/12/20
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an accused implicated in wildlife offenses and forest crimes.
Whether the gravity of offenses punishable under the Wildlife Protection Act precludes bail despite lesser punishment.
Whether mere reliance on confession statements without corroborative evidence justifies granting anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh and Others v. State of KeralaRelied on¶51
Ramesh and Others v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KHC 745]
Sulaiman v. State of KeralaRelied on¶51
Sulaiman v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KHC 195]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sijo Mathew
State of Kerala
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
