Dismissed

Jacob Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2020Bail Appl./6866/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of a bail petition filed by an accused in a wildlife poaching case. The court held that offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Forest Act are grave, and anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is only permissible under exceptional circumstances. The applicant was directed to surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In case of arrest, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court for consideration of regular bail.

Jacob Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6866 OF 2020

¶6

OR NO.7/2020 OF Akampadam Forest Station Office, Malappuram

¶7

PETITIONER/A4:

¶8

JACOB JOSEPH AGED 36 YEARS AZHAKATHEL HOUSE, VIJAYAPURAM, EDAVANNA P.O MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676541.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031. 682031

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. E.C.BINEESH

¶13

OTHERS PRESENT:

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 6866/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 9th day of December 2020 APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶19

The applicant is the fourth accused in OR No.7/2020 of Akampadam Forest Range, Malappuram for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 1(b), Sections 9, 39, 49, 50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Sections 27(1), (e), (iv) of Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and Section 3(A) and 25 of Arms Act, 1959.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant along with other accused trespassed into the Akampadam Forest Reserve of Edavanna Forest Range in Nilambur North Division and hunted several wild animals using country-made guns and thereafter shared the meat of those animals. The applicant states that he is innocent and ekes out a living plying his autorickshaw and that he had nothing to do with the alleged act of trespassing into the forest land or hunting of wild animals. He has been implicated solely on the basis of the alleged confession statement given by the other accused and therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that apart

¶23

BA 6866/2020

¶24

¶25

from the confession statements, there are also statements indicating the involvement of the applicant in purchasing of arms which were used for hunting of the animals. The applicant has to be subjected to interrogation for the purpose of unravelling the truth in this case. Therefore, the application for bail is vehemently opposed.

¶26

In view of the decision of this Court in Sulaiman v. State of Kerala [2020 (1) KLT 264] , and Ramesh and Others v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KHC 745] , offences under the Wildlife Act or a Forest Act are grave offences. Every citizen has a duty to protect wildlife. Art.51-A of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental duties of citizens. Art.51-A (g) provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. Offences under the Wild Life Protection Act are to be viewed very seriously - even while dealing with the Bail Applications filed by the accused who are involved in grave offences under the Wild Life Protection Act and the provisions under Section 438 Cr.PC can only be used under exceptional circumstances in offences committed under the aforesaid statutes.

¶27

Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. He is therefore directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation and

¶28

BA 6866/2020

¶29

¶30

recovery, if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of by the jurisdictional court on the very same day.

¶31

The bail application is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Jacob Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob Joseph 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

M.S Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Rajanish Thamban Vs State of Kerala

Jollyamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Nazeer Vs State of Kerala

Sarath N.S Vs State of Kerala

Cristabel Johnson Vs State of Kerala