The first of the applications are filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 while the latter is filed by the first accused, in O.R.No.9 of 2014 of the Thodupuzha Forest Range Office for various offences under the Kerala Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 for allegedly catching and thereafter killing a python and removing its skin and flesh. The first accused is in custody from 12.06.2014 and seeks bail while accused Nos.2 and 3 apprehend arrest and have sought pre-arrest bail. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications. It is submitted that on the relevant day and time the first accused who is an autorikshaw driver was told by the second accused about availability of a python. Accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the house of the second accused where the python was kept in a bucket. It was taken in the autorikshaw of the first accused to the property of James where the third accused joined them. They killed the python, its skin was removed and the meat was taken by the accused 2 and 3 in the autorikshaw. The skin is not so far recovered.
3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true.
The accused 2 and others were working in the property of James and accidentally the spade hit head of the python and it died. People gathered there. In order to destroy the meat, it was taken in the autorikshaw to a river about 100 mtrs. away. It is also submitted that the third accused is an employee in the Krishi Bhavan and if he is arrested and remanded, he will lose his job.
4. I have gone through the CD file and find specific allegations against accused 1 to 3. It is not clear where skin of the python was removed. Request of accused 2 and 3, whatever be the consequence that the third accused might to face, for pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed. The accused 2 and 3 should make themselves available for interrogation. Thereafter it is open to them to request the jurisdictional magistrate for bail.
5. So far as the first accused is concerned, he is in custody from 12.06.2014 and is not reported to be involved in any other crime. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail, but from a future date since investigation is not completed and subject to conditions.
The applications are disposed of as under.
B.A.No.4733 of 2014 I The first accused is granted bail in O.R.No.9 of 2014 of the Thodupuzha Forest Range Office and shall be released (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
a. One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the first accused.
b. The first accused shall report to the officer investigating the case on every Saturday between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. until filing of the final report or for two months whichever is earlier.
c. The first accused shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.
d. The first accused shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.
e. The first accused shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
f. In case any of condition Nos.(b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [AIR 2006 SC 100].
2. It is made clear that since the investigation is not completed, this order granting bail will take effect only from 02.07.2014.
B.A.No.4621 of 2014 This application is dismissed. Petitioners shall surrender before the officer investigating the case on 04.07.2014 at 10 a.m. and on other dates as directed by the investigating officer in case interrogation is not completed. In case they are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate as early as possible.
AMV sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE