This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the 10th accused in O.R. No.4 of 2014 of Forest Range Office, Peechi under Sec.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short). 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the accused persons criminally trespassed into the reserve forest area and hunted a wild buffalo in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Wild Life (Protection) Act and thereby, all of them have committed the offences punishable under Secs.2(1), 2(14), 2(16), 2(20), 2(26), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 27, 29, 30, 31, 39(1)(a), 50 and 51 of the Kerala Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent of the same. He has been falsely implicated in the case. For some time, he was working under the 1st accused and it was on that basis, he has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that he is one among the persons who trespassed into the forest and committed the offence.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. It is seen from the records that on 30.06.2014 when it was brought to the notice of the forest officials that a wild bullock was killed from the forest area, they filed a Form-1 report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur and during investigation, it was revealed that the 1st accused along with other accused persons trespassed into the forest area and committed the crime and accused nos.1 to 4 were arrested and when the 1st accused was arrested, it was revealed that other accused persons were also involved. Accordingly, the names of the accused persons including the present petitioner were shown as accused in this case. The offences alleged are grave in nature. One thing that the offence was committed inside the reserve forest where, the parties are not entitled to go. Further, a protected animal under the Wild Life (Protection) Act has been killed for the purpose its meat.
7. So, considering the gravity offences, this Court feels that it is not a fit case to invoke the power under Sec.438 of the Code to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. So, I do not find any reason to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Sec.438 of the Code in favour of the petitioner. It is seen from the records that the accused nos. 1 and 2 were arrested and they were granted bail by the Court below. So the petitioner can also surrender before the concerned Court and move for regular bail. The petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as claimed and the petition is liable to be rejected.
In the result the bail application is rejected.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE / True Copy / NS P.A. To Judge