Allowed

Lawrence @ Kunjumon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2022Bail Appl./7443/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to a disabled applicant charged with killing wild animals under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Balancing the need for investigation and the petitioner's physical incapacity, the court directed appearance before the IO within two weeks and granted bail upon arrest.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioner to appear before IO within two weeks; upon arrest, release on bail with bond and sureties under specified conditions.

Lawrence @ Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA,

¶5

1943

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 7443 OF 2021

¶7

(O.R.No.2/2021 OF THENMALA FOREST RANGE OFFICE)

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

LAWRENCE @ KUNJUMON AGED 62 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, ISFIELD ESTATE, NEDUMPARA, ARIENKAVU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 309. BY ADVS. IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA BIBIN KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

2 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER THENMALA FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 308.

¶13

SRI.M.C.ASHI-PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 22.12.2021, THE COURT ON 05.01.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

B.A.No.7443 of 2021

¶17

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶18

----------------------------------------------------------B.A.No. 7443 of 2021

¶19

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2022

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶22

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in O.R.No.2 of 2021 of Thenmala Forest Range for having allegedly committed the offences described in Sections 2(2), 2(16), 2(20), 9, 39, 50 and punishable under Section 51 of the Wild life (Protection) Act, 1972.

¶23

The prosecution allegations are as follows:

¶24

The 1st accused is the Senior Manager in the Nagamala Division of Harrison Malayalam Plantations, Thenmala. On 22.12.2020, while the officials attached to the Flying Squad of the Forest Department searched his house, he was found in possession of wild animal meat kept in his refrigerator. Meat of Sus scrofa (Wild boar) and Rusa unicolor (Sambar deer) were thus stored by the 1st accused. It was revealed in the

¶25

¶26

B.A.No.7443 of 2021

¶27

investigation that the 2nd accused (Mohanan) and the 3rd accused (petitioner herein) killed the wild boar using crackers.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. A report of the investigating officer has been placed on record as well.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally false, inasmuch as he is a totally incapacitated person having no ability to do the alleged acts. His leg is amputated and it is quite unlikely for him to get involved in such a crime. The learned counsel accordingly would submit that he is entitled to get anticipatory bail.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the statements recorded from the other accused implicate the petitioner to the offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is the person having a dominant role in killing the wild boar, and therefore, his custodial interrogation is very much required. Thus he opposes grant of anticipatory bail.

¶31

In the report of the investigating officer it is

¶32

¶33

B.A.No.7443 of 2021

¶34

indicated that the petitioner is a disabled man. It is further stated that he came to the place of occurrence in his scooter car and his involvement has been clearly established from the evidence already collected, especially the confession statement of the 2nd accused. In the circumstances, I am unable to subscribe to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, considering the physical disablement of the petitioner, it is only appropriate to avoid his detention during the period of investigation. Ensuring his presence and co-operation with the investigation, he can be given the benefit of the pre-arrest bail.

¶35

In the above circumstances, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and in the event of his being arrested, he shall, after interrogation and effecting recovery, if any, be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) along with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶36

¶37

B.A.No.7443 of 2021

¶38

the Investigating Officer, and on the following conditions:

¶39

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as

¶40

and when called for;

¶41

(ii) He shall cooperate with the investigation. He shall

¶42

not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with

¶43

evidence; and

¶44

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶49

Lawrence @ Kunjumon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lawrence @ Kunjumon 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

Muhammed Sudheer, Vs State of Kerala

Aniyan @ Anilkumar, Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh (A-1) Vs State of Kerala

Firose Babu Vs State of Kerala

Vasu Vs State of Kerala

Sajan Raj Vs State of Kerala