Sijo Mathew And Ors vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The applicant is the 3 rd accused in O.R No.8 of 2020 of Irulam Forest Station, Wayanad District, for having allegedly committed offences

punishable under Sections 9, 39, 50, 51 read with Section 2(16), 2(20), 2(35) and 2(36) of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and he is also an accused in

Crime No. 656 of 2020 of Kenichira Police Station, Wayanad, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 379 of the IPC. He

has filed B.A.No.6065 of 2020 for an anticipatory bail in O.R.No. 8 of 2020 of Forest Station and B.A.No.6088 of 2020 is filed by him for an

anticipatory bail in Crime No.656 of 2020. Both the cases are connected to each other and that is why it is being disposed of by a common order.

The applicant is allegedly working as the Estate Manager of Issac's Coffee Plantations, Pambra and he allegedly deputed his persons, who are the

other co-accused to hunt down wild animals. Guns and bullets were also allegedly entrusted to them by the applicant. The applicant allegedly wanted

to provide wild meat to the owner of the Estate, who had come there and in order to oblige him, he engaged persons to hunt down wild animals. When

the persons had allegedly gone hunting animals in the forest, they saw trap cameras installed by the Forest department for taking photographs of wild

animals. Realising that, the cameras would have captured the pictures of the persons, who were involved in poaching, he gave specific directions to

them to steal those cameras, and accordingly, those cameras were lifted, brought to the Estate and after the applicant allegedly removed the memory

card, the cameras were directed to be destroyed. And, thus he committed theft of camera for which Crime No.656 of 2020 was registered at the

Kenichira Police Station, while for hunting down wild animals O.R.No.8 of 2020 has been registered at the Irulam Forest Station.

It is alleged that two barking deers were hunted by the other accused and the carcass of those deers were recovered from the Estate, where the

applicant was the Manager. The venison was cooked and distributed among the applicant, the owner of the Estate, as also the others. The applicant

states that he has been implicated in these two crimes solely on the basis of confession statements given by the co-accused. There is no other material

seized or collected by the Investigating officers, to prove his complicity. It is also stated that confession statements cannot be relied upon unless there

is corroborative evidence to substantiate the prosecution case. He, therefore, seeks anticipatory bail in these two crimes.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed

the application for bail stating the applicant is a person, who has got criminal antecedents. He is involved in several Forest crimes and also Abkari

crimes. It is also stated that it is not the confession statement alone that led to his accusation. Specific materials were collected such as carcasses of

deer and statements of witnesses which led to the implication of the applicant. It is stated that statements of witnesses have been recorded. There are

materials to show that, the applicant is a person who had instigated the poaching of the wild animals. And, therefore, he cannot be granted the relief of

anticipatory bail in these cases.

After having considered the entire materials placed before this Court and the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as

also the learned Public Prosecutor, I find that the offence under the Wildlife Act is a very grave crime, which needs to be dealt with sternly. Granting

of anticipatory bail to accused, who are implicated in forest crimes would only encourage the other criminals to commit offences of similar nature.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would indicate that the offences under the Wildlife Act are only compoundable and attract

imprisonment only up to 3 years. And, therefore, it is not a grave offence that the applicant may therefore be granted anticipatory bail. I am not

convinced with the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the offences attract lesser punishments or are compoundable,

the offences of stealing trap cameras from the forest and facilitating the poaching of wild animals is definitely a very grave offence which cannot be

undermined. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. I also rely upon 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] in support of the findings.

The applications for anticipatory bail are therefore dismissed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer in both these

cases within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation and recovery, if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court

at the earliest, where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail which shall be preferably considered and disposed of on the very same date.