Allowed

Shiju G v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 Mar 2023Bail Appl./7497/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by a second accused in a wildlife crime case involving the death of an Indian Bison due to an electric fence constructed by the petitioner while acting as a contractor.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions to surrender within ten days for interrogation, execute a bond for Rs.30,000 with two sureties, cooperate with investigation, and avoid witness intimidation

Shiju G 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

FRIDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7497 OF 2022

¶6

O.R.NO.7/2021 BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICE, PALAPILLY RANGE

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHIJU G AGED 42 YEARS SHIJU BHAVAN, EDAPPALAYAM P.O, ARIENKAVU, KOLLAM, KERALA-691309, PIN – 691309

¶9

BY ADVS. BONNY BENNY VISHNU NARAYANAN BALU TOM BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

BY ADV. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2023,

¶14

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

BAIL APPL. NO. 7497 OF 2022

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 31^st day of March, 2023

¶19

The second accused in O.R.No.7/2022 of Palapilly Forest Range Office, Thrissur seeks the relief of pre-arrest bail in this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant documents along with detailed report submitted by the investigating officer in this crime.

¶21

The prosecution case is that, on 16.08.2021, the forest officers in Palapilly Range received secret information that a Gaur/Indian Bison got trapped in a fence constructed by ‘Harrison Malayalam Limited Company’ and thereafter, the Bison died due to electric shock from the fence. The allegation against the petitioner is that he being the contractor, had erected the electric solar fence which caused the death of the Indian Bison. On this

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 7497 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

premise, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 2(1), 2(16), 2(35), 2(36), 2(37), 9, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, by the accused.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is a contractor doing works for Harrison Malayalam Limited Company, and the Company obtained lease of the place of occurrence. Therefore, the petitioner has no intention to hunt any wild or captive animals. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner, pressed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner with offer to co-operate with the investigation.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor placed report showing death of Indian Bison due to electric shock, as finally found by the veterinary surgeon on postmortem examination. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, highlighting the

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 7497 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

necessity of arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner to accomplish meaningful investigation. In the report of the investigating officer, it is stated that accused No.2 is the Proprietor of Carmel Fencing Company, Pathanapuram and the death of the Bison is due to electric shock from the fencing.

¶30

On perusal of the available documents, the death of an Indian Bison on 16.08.2021 due to electric shock is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner herein erected solar electric fence as authorized by Harrison Malayalam Limited Company and the Company obtained lease over the property, where the fence was constructed, by the petitioner, as authorized by the company.

¶31

This being the facts of the case, I am inclined to

¶32

enlarge the petitioner on bail, with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for

¶33

¶34

BAIL APPL. NO. 7497 OF 2022

¶35

interrogation and to aid the investigation.

¶36

In the result, the bail application stands allowed and

¶37

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 surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

BAIL APPL. NO. 7497 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶47

NB/31-3

Shiju G v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiju G 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

M.K.Siyad Vs State of Kerala

Sreekuttan @ Ananthu Vs State of Kerala

Anjumol K.V Vs State of Kerala

Sajina Vs State of Kerala

Liji Jees Vs the Station House Officer

Abhiram Vs State of Kerala