Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Section 50 in The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Kerala Forest Act, 1961
Luca Beltrami vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2020
"5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed
out a very serious anomaly insofar as the investigation
and recording of the confession by the Investigating
Officer herein, who is none other than the Forest Ranger
who is not authorised under S.50(8) of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 neither to investigate nor to
record confession. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
placed two decisions on this point. Luca Beltrami and
Others v. State of Kerala reported in 2020 (4) KHC 603 is
the final decision placed to substantiate the said point.
Apart from that, he has placed decision of the Bombay
High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.1 of
2015 rendered on 22/06/2015.
Badku Joti Savant vs State Of Mysore on 1 March, 1966
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor seriously
opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has
also filed a bail objection report. The learned Special
Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the decisions of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Badku Joti Savant v
State of Mysore [ AIR 1966 SC 1746] Moti Lal v.
Central Bureau of Investigation [2001 KHC 2250]
and the decisions of this Court in Forest Range Officer
v. Aboobacker[1989 KHC 201] and Kunhali and
others v. Forest Range Officer and another [2012
KHC 231], to canvass the position that the confession
recorded by the forest officer is admissible in evidence.
He contended that the arguments of the learned counsel
BAIL APPL. NO. 647 OF 2024
5
for the petitioner is untenable. In addition to the
above contention, he also submitted that there are other
incriminating materials to show the involvement of the
petitioner. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is
necessary and recovery is to be effected. If the
petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would
hamper with the investigation. Hence, the application
may be dismissed.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 December, 2010
15. Viewed in the above background and taking
into account the initial statement filed by the
Investigating Officer that the petitioner has been
implicated on the strength of the confession statement
made by the first accused, I am prima facie of the view
that the petitioner has made out exceptional grounds to
invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court
BAIL APPL. NO. 647 OF 2024
12
under Section 438 of the Code and have fulfilled the
parameters laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] and a plethora of
judgments warranting this Court to exercise its
discretionary powers. Hence, I am inclined to allow the
bail application, but subject to stringent conditions:-
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Mr. Puneet Saini, Adv. For Petitioner In ... on 31 August, 2022
(ix) 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 647 OF 2024
14
Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].