Kerala High Court
Jilsan vs State Of Kerala on 23 March, 2021
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943
Bail Appl..No.2297 OF 2021
CRIME NO.4/2021 OF Thamarassery Forest Range Office , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
JILSAN
AGED 33 YEARS
KAKKAYANIKKAL, POOVARANTHODE P.O,
THIRUVAMBADY .
673603
BY ADV. SRI.T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
682031
2 RANGE FOREST OFFICER
AGED 42 YEARS
THAMARASSERY
673602
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2306/2021, Bail Appl..2307/2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.2297, 2306 & 2307/2021
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943
Bail Appl..No.2306 OF 2021
CRIME NO.33/2021 OF Thiruvambadi Police Station, Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
1 JILSAN, AGED 33 YEARS
KAKKAYANIKKAL, POOVARANTHODE P.O,
THIRUVAMBADY,
673603
2 VINOJ, S/O. EMMANUAL, AGED 33 YEARS,
KAYYALAKKAL, POOVARANTHODE P.O,
THIRUVAMBADY.
673603
3 JAYSON, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. MATHAI,
ALAYIL, MANJAKKADAVU P.O, KOODARANJI,
673603
BY ADV. SRI.T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
AGED 42 YEARS
THIRUVAMBADY POLICE STATION,THIRUVAMBADY P.O.
673603
SMT.V.SREEJA-PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2297/2021, Bail
Appl..2307/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.2297, 2306 & 2307/2021
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943
Bail Appl..No.2307 OF 2021
CRIME NO.2/2021 OF Thamarassery Forest Range Office , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
1 JILSAN
AGED 33 YEARS
KAKKAYANIKKAL, POOVARANTHODE P.O,
THIRUVAMBADY
673603
2 VINOJ
S/O. EMMANUAL, AGED 33 YEARS,
KAYYALAKKAL, POOVARANTHODE P.O,
THIRUVAMBADY,
673603
3 JAYSON
S/O. MATHAI, AGED 45 YEARS,
ALAYIL, MANJAKKADAVU P.O, KOODARANJI,
673603
BY ADV. SRI.T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
682031
2 RANGE FOREST OFFICER
AGED 42 YEARS
THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE.
673602
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2297/2021, Bail Appl..2306/2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.2297, 2306 & 2307/2021
-4-
COMMON ORDER
[ Bail Appl..2297/2021, Bail Appl..2306/2021, Bail Appl..2307/2021 ] Dated this the 23rd day of March 2021 APPLICATIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL The applicants in BA No.2306/2021 are accused 1, 2 and 4 in Crime No.33 of 2021 of Thiruvambady Police Station for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 3 read with 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1878. The applicant in BA No.2297/2021 is the first accused in OR No.4/2021 of Thamarassery Forest Range for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of Kerala Forest Act, 1961, and the applicants in BA No.2307/2021 are the same applicants in BA No.2306/2021 and they are arrayed as accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in OR No.2 of 2021 of Thamarassery Forest Range for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 9, 2(16)(35), 50, 51 and 52 of Kerala Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the first accused in all these three crimes was allegedly conducting a piggery and for the purpose of running the piggery, he had extracted water from the forest without any permission or authority and in consequence of that OR No.4/2021 was registered against him under the Forest Act for having trespassed into the forest and committed the offence. The allegation of the prosecution is that because of extracting water BA Nos.2297, 2306 & 2307/2021 -5- from the forest, wildlife in that forest area would be deprived of water. The accused is not entitled to extract water without any permission, and thus trespassed into the forest area.
3. The allegation in OR No.2/2021 is that the forest officials had on discrete information conducted a search of the pig farm of the first accused and recovered dried meat of Indian Bison, which is a scheduled and protected animal from his piggery and as a consequence of which the Crime was registered against him and others, who are involved. Some of the accused, who had fled away from there subsequently were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Some country made guns were also recovered from the piggery, in consequence of which Crime No.33/2021 of Thiruvambady Police Station was registered for offences punishable under Section 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.
4. The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true and that they have been implicated in these three crimes to wreak vengeance and that they are entitled to pre-arrest bail.
5. When the Forest officials had come there to conduct search in the piggery of the first accused, it is alleged that captive dogs were let loose at the forest officials as a consequence of which they had to retreat from there and they reimposed with police officials and conducted the search. At that time certain persons who were present in the piggery fled away from there. Another crime is also registered against the persons who had let loose the captive dogs at the forest officials. Such is the background of the accused in these crimes. There BA Nos.2297, 2306 & 2307/2021 -6- was seizure of Indian Bison meat from the piggery and country made guns and ammunition were also recovered from there. The applicants are therefore not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in these crimes. It is well established that offences under the Forest and Wildlife Act are very grave in nature and therefore, the accused who are involved in these crimes are not entitled to anticipatory bail. I rely on the decisions of this Court in Ramesh and Others v. State of Kerala [2010(1) KHC 745] and Sulaiman v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KHC 195].
The bail applications are therefore dismissed. The applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officers in the concerned crimes within a period of two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, they shall be interrogated and thereafter produced before the jurisdictional court, where they are at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of on the very same day.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg