Sajeevan P B v. The State, Represented By

Crl.O.P.No. 22157 & 22335 of 2024 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 9, r/w 2(16), Sections 39, 50, 51 of the Wild life Protection Act, 1972, in W.L.O.R No. 1 of 2024, and crime No.117 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B) (a ) of Arms Act, 1959 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner owns Estate in S.F.No.1 in Naduvattam Village, Udagain Taluk, Nilgiris District. On 21.04.2024, when the Forest Officials inspected the Estate they found that the petitioner, along with other accused, were involved in hunting of Deer and Bison and on search, they were found in possession of deadly weapons and flesh of the Deer was shared by them along with the other accused. Hence, the case.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the

petitioner came to India in the month of January 2024 to cast his vote in the Lok Shaba election 2024 and it was pre-planned to travel back to UAE on 21.04.2024. Immediately after casting his vote, in order to go to UAE, the petitioner travelled to North Parvoor on 20.04.2024, stayed there in Hotel Cee Cee Tower. On the next day, at about 11.00 a.m., he had booked his flight ticket, then reached Cochin Airport at 03.00 pm boarded the flight at 06.00 p.m., and travelled to UAE on the same day i.e. 21.04.2024. But he was implicated in this case, along with other accused persons, as if he committed the offence of hunting wild animals and for involving in various illegal activities. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

5. The contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) is that the petitioner had actively participated in the said offence and he is having four previous cases. Further, he submitted that after coming to know that investigation in this case is going against him through A3 he escaped to Dubai on 21.04.2024 and to support his contention the Government Advocate (Crl.side ) produced the CDR

report which shows that on the date of occurrence, more than 10 times, the petitioner made phone calls to A3.

6. As per the prosecution, the petitioner booked ticket and escaped to Dubai after coming to know that investigation was going against him. Further, as per the CDR report the petitioner had made phone calls frequently to A3 on the date of the alleged occurrence. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.

26.09.2024 pbl

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

pbl Crl.O.P.No.22157 & 22335 of 2024 26.09.2024