Allowed

Baby v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2023Bail Appl./666/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

JC granted pre-arrest bail to the 3rd accused in a wildlife hunting case. While noting the inadmissibility of a co-accused confession, the court allowed custody for custodial interrogation to clarify involvement in meat removal before releasing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail to surrender within ten days for two days of custodial interrogation by the Investigating Officer, subject to bond and other conditions.

Baby Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 666 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER CRIMINAL MC 1095/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 3:

¶8

BABY

¶9

AGED 61 YEARS
S/O MATHAI, NADUKKOTTAYIL HOUSE, CHERIYAR KARA,
SANTHANPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685551

¶10

BY ADVS.
B.SURJITH
RAHANA JOSE
LIJO JOSEPH

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

T V NEEMA SRPP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

BAIL APPL. No. 666 of 2023

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2023

¶20

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail, filed by the 3^rd

¶21

accused in Crime No. 44/2022 of Forest Range Office Devikulam, Idukki.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶23

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

I have perused the relevant documents placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The prosecution case is that, the accused herein hunted a samba deer at Cheriyar area of Ponmudi Section of Devikulam Forest Range and ate the meat. On this premise, prosecution allegation commission of offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are false. According to him, one and only material that has been relied on by the prosecution, to fasten criminal liability upon the petitioner, in the

¶27

matter of cutting and using of the flush of samba deer by the

¶28

BAIL APPL. No. 666 of 2023

¶29

¶30

petitioner, is the confession statement recorded as that of coaccused. Since, it is settled that the confession statement recorded by the Forest Range Officer, is inadmissible in evidence, the prosecution went wrong in arraying the petitioner as an accused without support of any relevant materials. He also submitted that, in the said circumstances, the petitioner deserves bail and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation and to aid the same.

¶31

While opposing the bail, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused Nos. 1, 2,4, 5 and 6 were arrested and it has been revealed during investigation that the petitioner is the person who took away the meat from the site and his involvement in removing the skin and cutting the flush, required to be investigated. Therefore, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner are essential to accomplish eventful investigation and successful prosecution.

¶32

In sofar as the legal point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is true that, the officers who are empowered to record confession statement of an accused, is the officer mentioned in Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and the same does not include a forest range officer. Even

¶33

BAIL APPL. No. 666 of 2023

¶34

¶35

though, such statement is inadmissible in evidence, it cannot be said that the same has no purpose during investigation. Disclosure statement given by the co-accused, so as to give a link to locate the involvement of the other accused can be used during investigation to collect evidence regarding the truth of the disclosure. Here, the allegation is that the petitioner is the person who took the meat from the site and cut the same into pieces. Therefore, the prosecution wants to get the details as to how the petitioner dealt with the meat of samba deer. The learned Public Prosecutor sought custodial interrogation of the petitioner for the said purpose.

¶36

On evaluation of the available materials, there is reason to disbelieve the prosecution allegation against the petitioner, prima facie. Therefore, interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. Therefore, by giving deemed custody of the petitioner for the purpose of interrogation and investigation. He can be enlarged on bail.

¶37

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the petitioner can be enlarged on bail, on the following conditions:

¶38

i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such

¶39

BAIL APPL. No. 666 of 2023

¶40

¶41

surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner for two days in between 10.00 am to 3.00 pm. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself.

¶42

ii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/(Rupees thirty thousand only) by himself and by two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶43

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.

¶44

iv. The petitioner, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

¶45

v. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement alone is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

A. BADHARUDEEN,JUDGE

Sd/-

mtk

BAIL APPL. No. 666 of 2023

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 666/2023

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE FOREST OFFENCE REPORT
- PRELIMINARY DATED 14.11.2022
SUBMITTED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, NEDUMKANDAM
Annexure A2FREE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.01.2023, IN CRL.M.C.NO.1095/2022 ON
THE FILES OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS
JUDGE, THODUPUZHA

Baby v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby 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

Rajesh K B Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh K B Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Shinumon a Vs State of Kerala

Favas K.P Vs State of Kerala

Rajmohan Vs State of Kerala