Mohamed Mydeen v. The Forest Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fourth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.16747 of 2017 MOHAMED MYDEEN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE FOREST OFFICER, RAMANATHAPURAM RAGE FOREST RANGE, RAMANATHAPURAM, (IN W.L.O.R.NO.8 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.A.S.ALAUDEEN, Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN,Additional Public Prosecutor. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Heard both sides.

The petitioner/Accused No.2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, (I,a,b,d,3) 50 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and amended 2002 in W.L.O.R.No.8 of 2017, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused was carried the prohibited few quantities of unpreserved sea cucumber through omni van. On seeing the respondent police the petitioners were fled away from the place of occurrence and the same has been seized by the respondent police. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case has been registered belatedly on 27.10.2017, though the respondent police seized the materials from another person/A's vehicle on 26.10.2017. He further submitted that he is an innocent person and based on the confession statement of A1, he has been falsely implicated in the above said crime.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police, on instructions, would submit that the investigation is not yet completed. The property which was possessed by the petitioner and was recovered. He further submitted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

that the petitioner is having the following previous cases in different years, which are as follows:

t.vz;

Td caphpdFw;w mwpf;if vd;.(WLOR NO) Njjp Fwpg;G 1.

06/2009 19.10.2009 420 fpNyh fly; ml;il 2.

02/2011 19.06.2011 30 fpNyh fly; ml;il 3.

05/2011 19.06.2011 260 fpNyh fly; ml;il 4.

04/2012 27.02.2012 150 fpNyh fly; ml;il 5.

02/2013 22.05.2013 48 fpNyh fly; ml;il 6.

07/2013 17.06.2013 5 fpNyh fly; ml;il 7.

12/2013 24.10.2013 35 fpNyh fly; ml;il So according to prosecution, the petitioner is having 7 previous case, it is clearly shows that the petitioner is having a habitual offender and he is having a habit to commit the same type of offences. Hence, he vehemently opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and also considering the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender and the petitioner is having number of previous cases pending against him, this Court come to the conclusion that in order to complete the investigation, custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A2. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 04/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE FOREST OFFICER, RAMANATHAPURAM RAGE FOREST RANGE, RAMANATHAPURAM. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.16747 of 2017 Date :04/01/2018 PK/RR/SAR-1/09.01.2018 : 2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/