Kerala High Court
Ali P vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 3161 OF 2022
CRIME NO.12/2021 OF PATTIKKAD FOREST RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.5 & 6:
1 ALI P
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. KUNCHI MUHAMMED HAJI P, PUTHUTHOTTIL HOUSE,
SOUTH ANNARA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 676101
2 MUNSHAR
AGED 39 YEARS
S.O. ABDUL KHADAR, RAYAMMARAKAR VEETTIL,
THRITHALLUR WEST, VADANAPPALLY, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR DISTRICT; NOW RESIDING AT EDAKAZHIYUR,
NEAR SINGAPORE PALACE, WEST BEACH ROAD, THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 680515
BY ADVS.
P.T.SHEEJISH
V.MAHENDRANATH
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
PP - SRI. M.C.ASHI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.3161 of 2022 2
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
B.A. No.3161 of 2022
.................................................................
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 6 in Crime
No.12 of 2021 of Pattikkad Forest Range Office, Thrissur registered
alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 2(32),
9, 39(1)(a)(b)(d), (3)(a)(b)(c), 50, 51(1) and 57 of Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 and Sections 7, 24 and 55 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
3. Prosecution allegation is that on 09.07.2021 accused 1 to 3
were found in unauthorised possession of 'ambergris' and they were
apprehended by the forest officials near to one Kajah resort while they
were engaged in its sale and thus committed the abovesaid offences.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that accused 1 to 3 are already
arrested and granted bail by this Court as per Annexure-4 order. The
alleged contraband was also recovered by the prosecution. Though the
petitioners moved bail applications before the Sessions Court, Thrissur,
the same was dismissed in two occasions as per Annexures-1 and 2. It is
only because of the reason that the 1st petitioner is brother of the 2nd
accused that he has been arrayed as an accused. He is totally innocent of
the allegations levelled against him.
5. The application for bail is vehementally opposed by the
learned Public Prosecutor and contended that article seized by the forest
officials is of an endangerd species and is very costly in the market. It is
further submitted that the source of receipt of the article is yet to be
revealed and therefore custodial interrogation of the petitioners is
absolutely necessary in the matter.
6. Further aspect to be noted is that earlier the petitioner moved
anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Thrissur which has
rejected as per Annexure-1 order and later bail application moved before
this Court has also rejected as per Annexure-3. I do not find any change
in circumstance so as to entertain the present application for bail.
Taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that this is
not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is for the petitioners to surrender
and seek for bail.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3161/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. NO.
1043/2021 DATED 13.08.2021 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR.
Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. NO.
1065/2021 DATED 06.08.2021 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR.
Annexure3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BAIL APPLICATION
NO. 7080/2021 DATED 16.11.2021.
Annexure4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN BAIL
APPLICATION NO. 5866/2021
Annexure5 TRUE COPY OF THE CUSTODY APPLICATION OF
ACCUSED 1 TO 3 IN OR 12 / 2021 DATED
14.7.2021.
Annexure6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN BAIL
APPLICATION NO. 5866/2021
