This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the first accused in Crime No.253/2014 of Sholayur police station (wrongly shown as Mannarkkadu police station in the petition which was corrected as per order in Crl.M.A.No.11814/2014) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner was arrested in connection with O.R.No.11/2014 of Deputy Ranger, Sholayur Forest Station for an offence under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act and after 15 days of incarceration, he was released on bail. Thereafter, the present crime has been registered alleging offence under Section 25(1)(b) and 3 of Arms Act. His custody is not required. So, he prayed for allowing the application.
3. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that he is a habitual offender.
4. It is seen from the records that when it was brought to the notice of the Forest Officials that the petitioner along with others have committed the offence of hunting of wild animal in the forest, O.R.No.11/2014 was registered by Deputy Ranger, Sholayur Forest Station against the petitioner and others alleging offence under the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act. The allegation was that he used a country gun for committing the offence of hunting and killing a Sambar deer from the reserve forest. On the basis of the report given by the Forest Officials, the Sholayur police had registered another crime as Crime No.253/2014 of that police station alleging offence under Section 25(1)(b) and 3 of Arms Act. It is admitted in the petition itself that he was arrested in connection with O.R.No.11/2014 of Sholayur Forest Range and released on bail after 15 days. The Public Prosecutor submitted that he is a habitual offender of committing similar offences. So, considering the circumstances, this court feels that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner invoking the extra ordinary power under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. If the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer and investigating officer after interrogation feels that his arrest is required, then, after recording his arrest, produce him before the concerned magistrate court without delay as far as possible on the same date and on such production, if the petitioner moves for regular bail before that court, then, the learned magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail application after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court as far as possible on the date of filing of the application itself in accordance with law.
With the above direction and observation, the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge