Allowed

Shiju.U v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Feb 2021Bail Appl./788/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to five accused alleged of killing a sambar deer under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. The court observed that incrimination rested solely on confessions of co-accused with no physical evidence against the applicants, allowing pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; surrender to IO within two weeks; bail on execution of bond with conditions against tampering and new offences.

Shiju.U Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.788 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.22/2020 OF THAMARASSERY FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE

PETITIONERS:

1 SHIJU.U

AGED 40 YEARS

SON OF UNNI,MATTIKKUNNU HOUSE, MAYILALLAMPARA 673586

¶11

2 BALAKRISHNAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O GOPALAN , MAVULLAPOYIL HOUSE, MAYIALLAMPARA (PO) 673586

¶12

3 PRAKASAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O UNNI PARAVAN, VENCATTIL HOUSE, MAYILALLAMPARA (PO) 673586

¶13

4 BIJU.P.N AGED 40 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN,KILIKKUNNUMMEL HOUSE MAYILALLAMPARA (PO) 673586

¶14

5 RAJESH .K AGED 38 YEARS S/O KRISHNANKUTTY,KUNNATH HOUSE , MAYILALLAMPAARA.(PO) 673586

¶15

BY ADV. SMT.K.VINAYA

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶18

2 RANGE FOREST OFFICER THAMARASSERY RANGE OFFICE, CHUNGAM, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE 673573

¶19

Bail Appl.No.788 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

SMT.V.SREEJA -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Bail Appl.No.788 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Dated this the 4th day of February 2021

¶28

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL U/S 438 Cr.PC

¶29

The applicants are accused Nos. 5 to 8 in OR.No.22/2020 on the files of Thamarassery Forest Range Office, having allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 2(16) (20) (31), 9,939, 50, 51 and 52 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

¶30

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.12.2020, the applicants allegedly killed a sambar deer, which is a scheduled animal by pelting stones and hitting it with sticks etc., and thereafter they shared the meat between themselves. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were arrested and 127 kg of venison was recovered from their possession. Implements used to kill the animal were also recovered. On the basis of the alleged confession statement given by accused Nos. 1 to 4, the applicants were also implicated.

¶31

Bail Appl.No.788 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

The applicants apprehend arrest and had therefore approached this Court for anticipatory bail. The applicants state that they have been implicated solely based on the alleged confession statement of the co-accused, and that there is no other incriminating material seized from the applicants or material collected against them and hence, they may be granted pre-arrest bail. They did not have any criminal antecedents.

¶34

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that at

¶36

present there are only confession statements of the coaccused indicating the involvement of the applicants in the crime. There is no material collected against them. But the investigation is going on and the investigating Officer is striving to collect incriminating materials against the applicants. Hence, the application for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

After having heard the submissions on both sides, I

¶38

Bail Appl.No.788 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

find that involvement of the applicants in the crime is at present based solely on the alleged confession statements given by accused Nos. 1 to 4. The confession statement of the co-accused is admissible provided there are other corroborative materials pointing towards the involvement of the accused. In the instant case, recovery of meat and implements were made only from the possession of accused Nos. 1 to 4. There are no incriminating materials seized from the possession of the applicants. Under the circumstances, the complicity of the applicants in the crime is yet to be established. The applicants admittedly do not have any criminal antecedence. Under the circumstances, I find that they are entitled to pre-arrest bail

¶41

Hence the application is allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and in the event of them being arrested, after interrogation and recovery, if any, they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two

¶42

Bail Appl.No.788 OF 2021

¶43

¶44

solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and on following further conditions:

¶45

(i) They shall appear before the Investigating

¶46

Officer as and when called for.

¶47

(ii) They shall not intimidate or influence witnesses

¶48

and tamper with evidence.

¶49

(iii) They shall not get involved in similar offences

¶50

during the currency of the bail period.

¶51

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the

¶52

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional Court.

¶53

The bail application is allowed.

(Sd/-)

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

AJ/04.02.2021

Shiju.U v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiju.U 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

Shyju Vs State of Kerala

Sreedas Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Raoof Vs State of Kerala

Saheer Alias Sha Paraichakam Vs State of Kerala

Shahid Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu.B.C Handran Vs State of Kerala