Case No. – 7123 of 2018
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. R. Narayana Pisharadi J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 5 November 2018
RELEVANT ACTS/SECTIONS:
Section 9 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Prohibition for hunting)
Section 31 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Prohibition of entry into the sanctuary with the weapon)
Section 39 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Wild animals, etc., to be Government property)
Section 42 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Certificate of ownership)
Section 51 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Penalties)
Section 4382 of Cr.P.C. 1973 (Anticipatory bail)
BACKSTORY
This was the second application for anticipatory bail documented by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was the third accused of the situation enrolled as O.R.No.7/2017 of the Peruvannamoozhy Forest Range under Sections 9, 31, 39, 42 and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
On the early morning of 14.11.2017, the Section Forest Officer, Kakkayam Section of the Peruvannamoozhy Forest Range, acquired dependable information that the principal accused and some different people had killed wild creatures and they would carry the meat of the creatures to the place of the main accused. The forest authorities drove by the Section Forest Officer came to approach the place of the main charged and covered up close to the compound divider confronting the vehicle patio of the house. At about 04.30 hours, the principal accused went to the vehicle patio in his vehicle and the forest authorities encompassed the vehicle and acquired the key of the vehicle from him. At the point when they reviewed the storage compartment of the vehicle, they found the meat of the wild creature and knives in it. The forest authorities attempted to arrest the principal accused. Around then, second and the third accused, who were going with the vehicle of the first accused on a bike, came there. They assaulted the forest authorities with weapons and the accused left the spot. After some time, with the help of the police, the forest officials seized the meat and the knives from the vehicle. On directing an inquiry of the house, different animal articles including head and horns of Indian Gaur, Sambar deer, and Barking deer were seized from the house. It was claimed that the accused had hunted wild animals and kept the meat in the place of the main accused.
Hence, the previously mentioned conditions argued by the applicant can’t be considered as an adjustment in the conditions of the case which would be qualified by the candidate to forget the advantage of pre-arrest bail. The application was liable to be dismissed. The Court had held that without any adjustment in the conditions of the real circumstance of the case, a second application for anticipatory bail can’t be engaged and that documenting such an application would be maltreatment of the procedure of the court.
JUDGEMENT
The application was dismissed by the court.