Dismissed

Merankhani v. The Forest Ranger

Madras HC1 Sept 2021CRL OP(MD)/10285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dismissed a bail petition filed by an accused charged with illegal collection and trade of sea cucumbers under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, rejecting the petitioner's claim of inadvertent capture as the facts suggested clear illegal intent.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Accused must remain in custody pending final orders.

Merankhani Vs The Forest Ranger — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.10285 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Reserved on : 10/08/2021 Pronounced on : 01/09/2021 PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶5

CRL OP(MD). No.10285 of 2021

¶6

Meerankhani ... Petitioner/2^nd Accused

¶7

¶8

The Forest Ranger, Forest Range, Mandapam, Ramanathapuram District. W.L.O.R.No.8 of 2021 ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.SENTHILKUMAR, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.T.SENTHILKUMAR, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

PRAYER :-

¶12

For Bail in W.L.O.R.No.8 of 2021 on the file of the respondent.

¶13

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner / second accused, who was arrested on 13.07.2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39(1)(a)(b)(d), 39(3) (a)(b)(c), 40(2), 50, 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, in W.L.O.R. No.8 of 2021, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that on 13.07.2021, at about 06.00 am, when the respondent and team was on patrol, they saw a country boat, bearing registration no.IND TN-11-M-1099, in Vedhalai Kuravan grove and on seeing the forest officials, the said boat rushed towards the deep sea. The officials chased and intercepted the boat between Hare and Manoli island. The officials searched the boat and found that the accused nos.1 & 2 had involved in illegal collection and sale of sea cucumber weighing about 100 kgs. During the chase, the accused persons have thrown some amount of sea cucumbers, weighing approximately 500 kgs, into the sea. The boat, 100 kgs of sea cucumber were seized. Hence, the case.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is a fishermen and is standing on the sea shore for fishing. One https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/5

¶18

CRL OP(MD). No.10285 of 2021

¶19

boat bearing registration no.IND TN-11-MO-1099 was anchored in Mandapam South sea shore, with 100 kgs of sea cucumber. The respondent came there and enquired the petitioner about the same. Though the petitioner has stated that he has no knowledge about the boat or the sea cucumber, the respondent has foisted this false complaint and therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

¶20

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly opposed for the grant of bail. He submitted that 100 kgs of sea cucumber was seized and in fact, 500 kgs of sea cucumber was thrown by the accused persons into the sea, on seeing the officials. The boat is not registered with the Fisheries Department. The third accused is the owner of the boat and he is absconding. The investigation is yet to be completed. Though the petitioner is not having any previous case to his credit, the first accused, along with whom the petitioner was spotted and apprehended, is having one previous case of similar in nature. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of him in continuing the illegal collection and trade and therefore, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶21

The prosecution case is that the petitioner/second accused and the first accused were found in illegal collection and sale of 100 kg of sea cucumber. Sea cucumbers are marine animals found on the sea floor and they are the Earthworms in the marine environment. Taking note of the importance of sea cucumber in marine environment, this Court has directed the concerned officer to assist the Court and accordingly, Mr.G.Venkatesh, Forest Range Officer, Mandapam Wildlife Range, Mandapam, is present before this Court and has also filed a report.

¶22

From the submissions made by the Officer and from the report filed by him, this Court can infer the following:

¶23

Sea cucumbers act like Earthworm in the marine environment;

¶24

they feed on tiny particles, like algae, minute aquatic animals or waste materials and break down these particles into even smaller pieces, which become fodder for bacteria and thus, recycle them back into the ocean ecosystem;

¶25

their poop provides the nutrients required for the growth of mangroves, sea grass, etc., and that apart, their poop on a coral reef reduces ocean acidification and are contributing calcium carbonate to the coral reefs;

¶26

they act like a natural antacid to neutralize other acidic environmental sources.

¶27

Apart from the above, they are having several medicinal values as well, for which, they are being exploited. Anything that is exploited beyond a certain limit is having its own consequences. Likewise, over exploitation of sea cucumbers would decrease sediment health, reduce nutrient recycling and potential benefits of deposit feeding to sea water chemistry, diminish biodiversity of associated symbionts and reduce the transfer of organic matter from detritus to higher trophic levels. To avoid such a situation, sea cucumbers are listed in Schedule I, Part IV-C of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and are strictly banned for collection and for trade in India, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from 2001.

¶28

2/5

¶29

CRL OP(MD). No.10285 of 2021

¶30

A blanket submission was made before this Court that while fishing, the sea cucumbers are caught in the net and that they are not catching the sea cucumbers intentionally. This Court is not inclined to accede the said submission for the reason that sea cucumbers are found on the sea floor and not on the surface of the sea or the inter-space. One should not forgot that over-exploitation of sea cucumbers not only damages the marine ecosystem, but the human ecosystem, as well, more particularly, the fishermen, as both are inter-dependent.

¶31

In the case on hand, the petitioner and the other accused were caught red-handed. But the case of the petitioner is otherwise and it has to be tested during the trial. The third accused, who is the owner of the unregistered boat, is still absconding and is yet to be apprehended. A photograph has been produced by the respondent and a perusal of the same shows that the boat is full of sea cucumbers alone, without any other fish variants. Therefore, prima facie , this Court is of the view that it is a clear case of illegal collection and sale of sea cucumber.

¶32

The parameters of granting bail have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases.

¶33

10.1. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh , (2002) 3 SCC 598 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the factors that must guide the exercise of the power to grant bail in the following terms :

¶34

“3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.

¶35

4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:

¶36

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being

¶38

3/5

¶39

CRL OP(MD). No.10285 of 2021

¶40

tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

¶41

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

¶42

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”

¶43

10.2. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee , (2010) 14 SCC 496 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

¶44

“9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

¶45

i. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground

¶46

to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

¶47

ii. nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶48

iii. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

¶49

iv. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

¶50

v. character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

¶51

vi. likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶52

vii. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

¶53

viii. danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

¶54

10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal.”

¶55

10.3. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar , (2020) 2 SCC 118 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

¶56

“12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶57

4/5

¶58

CRL OP(MD). No.10285 of 2021

¶59

which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.”

¶60

In view of the foregoing discussions and the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶61

Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

¶62

sd/01/09/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶63

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶64

¶65

1.THE FOREST RANGER FOREST RANGE, MANDAPAM, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶66

2.THE OFFICER INCHARGE

¶67

DISTRICT PRISON, RAMANTHAPURAM.

¶68

3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶69

ORDER IN

¶70