High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
JINNETE MATHEW v. STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 5635 of 2006  RD-KL 780 (18 September 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMBail Appl No. 5635 of 2006()
1. JINNETE MATHEW,
1. STATE OF KERALA,
2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES
O R D E R
J.M.JAMES, J.B.A.Nos. 5635/06 & 5641/06
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006
O R D E RThe petitioner is the first accused in O.R.No.11/2006 of Pariyaram Forest Range, for the offence punishable under Sections 5, 50, 51, 39, 2(1), 2 (14), 2(16), 2(32), 2(35) and 2(36) of the Wild Life Protection Act.
2. The allegation against the first accused is that he had handed over a carcass of Nilgiri Langoor to the second accused on 21.8.2006, while the second accused was travelling in his car, driven by the third accused. On his routine cheque up, the Sub Inspector of Vellarikulangara police station, detected the offence and therefore, arrested the third accused, the driver of the car. While he was interrogated, he confessed about the sequence of events, because of which the sub Inspector transferred the investigation to the Pariyaram Forest Range officials, who subsequently registered O.R.No.11/2006, as stated above.
3. The first accused approached the Sessions B.A.Nos.5635/2006 & 5641/2006 2 Court for an order, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. He is the member of the Athirampally Grama Panchayat. As per the interim order, passed by the Sessions Court, he appeared before the Investigating Officer and he was allowed to participate in the proceedings of the Panchayat, where a non confidence motion, moved by the opposition, was pending for consideration. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the election of the President and Vise-President are also scheduled to be held on 22.9.2006 and 26.9.2006 respectively, and the presence of the petitioner, in the Panchayat meetings, is also required. Hence this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., as the Sessions Court had finally dismissed the prayer of the first accused, under the very same Section.
4. Bail application No.5635/2006 is preferred by the second accused. He is the owner of the car, in which he has travelled with the third accused and to whom, the first accused had handed over the carcass of Nilgiri Langoor. However, the learned counsel for the second accused submitted that the petitioner was not travelled in the car. He is also before this Court, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., as the application for the very same relief, had been rejected by the Sessions Court of B.A.Nos.5635/2006 & 5641/2006 3 Thrissur.
5. I heard both sides. Considering the materials on record and also taking into consideration that the first accused had already been before the Investigating Officer, I direct the accused 1 and 2 to surrender before him on 20.9.2006 between 9.30 a.m and 10.00 a.m.
6. The Investigating Officer shall interrogate the accused 1 and 2, and thereafter, produce them before the Court below on the same day itself. The learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders, but shall ensure that the first accused is allowed to participate in the proceedings of the Panchayat, during the scheduled dates of election of President and Vise-President of that Panchayat.
7. The prayers of the accused 1 and 2 as well as the prosecution shall be considered by the learned Magistrate on merit. Both the applications are disposed of as above. J.M.JAMES
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.