Judgment · High Court · 2007
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With this direction, this petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 ss. 2(1), 2(16), 2(20), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39(1)(a), 39(3)(c), 51
- Arms Act, 1959
Key paragraphs
- Para 33.I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to thepetitioners. However, I am inclined to give the petitioners anopportunity to surrender before the Investigating Officer andhave their application for regular bail disposed of by thecompetent Magistrate. Accordingly, the petitioners are directedto surrender before the Investigating…
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -BAIL APPLICATION NO.7713 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - ----------------------- - - - - - - DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007
O R D E R Petitioners who are accused 2 and 3 in O.R.No.8/06 of Palakkayam Forest Station for offences punishable under sections2(1), 2(16), 2(20), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39(1)(a), 39(3)(c) and 51 ofthe Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, section 27(1)(e) of the ForestAct and provisions of the Arms Act for allegedly trespassing into areserve forest and killing a mouse deer on 18.12.2006, seekanticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.
Operative part
I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to thepetitioners. However, I am inclined to give the petitioners anopportunity to surrender before the Investigating Officer andhave their application for regular bail disposed of by thecompetent Magistrate. Accordingly, the petitioners are directedto surrender before the Investigating Officer (Forest RangeOfficer, Mannarkkad) on any day between 10.1.2007 and15.1.2007 for the purpose of custodial interrogation. Thepetitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate BA.7713/06Page numbershaving jurisdiction on the same day. In case the petitioners filean application for regular bail, the same shall be considered anddisposed of by the Magistrate, preferably on the same date onwhich it is filed. With this direction, this petition is disposed of.V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGEdsn
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With this direction, this petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 — ss. 2(1), 2(16), 2(20), 2(35), 2(36), 9, 39(1)(a), 39(3)(c), 51; Arms Act, 1959.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 09 Jan 2007. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.