Kerala High Court
Sujesh K.S. @ Kannan vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2024:KER:82794
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 8535 OF 2024
CRIME NO.4/2024 OF MUPLIYAM FOREST STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/SECOND ACCUSED:
SUJESH K.S@ KANNAN,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.SURESH, KARIYADAN HOUSE,
KODASSERY VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
MECHIRA P.O., THRISSUR - 680721
BY ADVS.
I.SHEELA DEVI
BINESH.K.N.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA. M.K
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:82794
B.A. No.8535 of 2024 2
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the second accused in O.R. No. 4/2024 of the Mupliyam Forest Station, Thrissur, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 2(36), 9, 39(1), a, b, 39(3), a, b, 49, a, b, 50, 51, and 57, of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (Amendment Act 2022). The petitioner was arrested on 02.10.2024.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that:
the second accused had collected the venison (Sambar deer meat), which is protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and sold the same to the first accused. The first accused consumed a portion of the venison and preserved the remaining portion in his house. Thus, the accused have committed the above 2024:KER:82794 B.A. No.8535 of 2024 3 offences.
3. Heard; Smt. Sheela Devi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Pushpalatha., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner's culpability in the crime. The Investigating Office has implicated the petitioner as an accused solely on the basis of the confession statement of the first accused, which is inadmissible in evidence in view of the law laid down by this Court in Luca Beltrami vs. State of Kerala (2020 (4) KHC 603). In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than one month, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioner may be 2024:KER:82794 B.A. No.8535 of 2024 4 released on bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the investigation in the case is only at a nascent stage. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the venison, and sold it to the first accused. The first accused was arrested with the contraband article. The petitioner's contention is that he has been implicated as an accused in the crime solely on the basis of the confession statement of the first accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution allegation is that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime. The fact remains that the petitioner has been 2024:KER:82794 B.A. No.8535 of 2024 5 in judicial custody for the last more than one month, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.
7. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India, [2024 INSC 604] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in the following lines:
"21. xxxxx When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution. "
2024:KER:82794 B.A. No.8535 of 2024 6
8. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected, and furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.
In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 2024:KER:82794 B.A. No.8535 of 2024 7 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;
(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional court at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the jurisdictional court on the date of execution of the bond;
(v) In case of violation of any of the
conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional
court shall be empowered to consider the
application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
2024:KER:82794 B.A. No.8535 of 2024 8
(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the jurisdictional court.
(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/7.11.2024 2024:KER:82794 B.A. No.8535 of 2024 9 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8535/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.8437/2024 DATED 08.10.2024 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY.