Bejoy Mathew v. State of Kerala and Range Forest Officer, Thenmala Forest Range Office, Kollam

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ashok Menon
Judgment Date: 2021-02-08
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application disposed of with directions to surrender within two weeks; upon arrest, the accused to be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate without delay; if a bail application is moved, it should be disposed of preferably on the same day.
Final Disposition: Anticipatory bail declined; bail application disposed of with surrender and expedited post-arrest bail considerations

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bejoy Mathew

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Range Forest Officer, Forest Range Office, Thenmala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Sreekumar
• Sri P. Martin Jose

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. V. Sreeja (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Bejoy Mathew, aged 59, is the first accused in O.R. No.5 of 2020 of the Thenmala Range, facing offences under sections 2(21), 2(16), 2(10) and section 9 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The prosecution alleges that on 22.12.2020 forest officials recovered six kilograms of meat from the applicant’s residence; lab examination identified cattle meat and wild meat (wild boar and sambar). The applicant contends he is innocent, claiming some estate employees, out of animosity, supplied wild animal meat misrepresented as buffalo meat and pork; he asserts he believed it to be meat from cattle and pork and was not aware it involved wild species. He argues lack of material linking him to hunting or deliberate possession of wildlife. Earlier, Sessions Court granted interim anticipatory bail but dismissed the final bail application. The State, through counsel, maintains the seriousness of wildlife offenses and that there is material suggesting involvement, opposing bail. The High Court, relying on a decision in Ramesh and Others v. State of Kerala, takes a cautious view on anticipatory bail under the WPA. Ultimately, the court disposes of the bail application, directing the applicant to surrender within two weeks for interrogation; on arrest, he must be produced before the magistrate, who should decide any bail petition expeditiously, preferably the same day.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC, Section 438Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Sections 2(21), 2(16), 2(10) and 9

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by some employees who supplied wild animal meat as buffalo meat/pork to trap him. He states he believed the meat to be ordinary cattle meat and pork, and there is no material establishing his involvement or intent. He argues that the court should grant anticipatory bail given lack of direct evidence and that the WPA offences should be approached with caution, not depriving him of liberty without due cause; the prior interim bail (Sessions Court) indicates some support for his claim, which should be evaluated at trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the nature of wildlife offenses is serious and there is material suggesting involvement, including improper handling and storage of wildlife meat. It highlights the recovery of meat from the residence and the potential for harm to wildlife protection efforts. The respondents argue that anticipatory bail should ordinarily be denied in such cases and that the accused’s claim of misrepresentation by employees does not undermine the seriousness of the offenses.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramesh and Others v. State of Kerala	2010(1) KHC 745	Positive	The court cites this decision to underscore that the anticipatory bail remedy is exceptional for Wild Life Protection Act offenses and should not be granted, guiding the present order denying broad relief.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942** **Bail Appl..No.1466 OF 2021** **CRIME NO.5/2020 OF Thenmala Forest Range Office, Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** ||**PETITIONER/ACCUSED** **:**| |---|---| ||**BEJOY MATHEW** **AGED 59 YEARS** **SON OF M. M. MATHEW,** **SENIOR MANAGER,** **NAGAMALLAY ESTATE,** **KALTHURITTY P.O, PUNALUR,** **KOLLAM** **691309**| ||**BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR** **SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE**| ||**RESPONDENTS** **:**| ||**1** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF** **KERALA** **682031**| ||**2** **THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER** **FOREST RANGE OFFICE,** **THENMALA** **691308**| ||**R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.SREEJA**| **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. No.1466/2021 2 ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 8th day of February 2021** ... This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The applicant is the first accused in O.R.No.5 of 2020 of Thenmala Range for having allegedly committed the offences under Sections 2(21), 2(16), 2(10) and Section 9 of the Wild Life Protection)Act, 1972. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the applicant is working as a Senior Manager in M/s. Harrison Malayalam Ltd., a plantation consisting of extensive rubber plantations. On 22.12.2020, the forest officials got reliable information regarding the applicant storing wild animal meat in the official residence. The Forest officials came there for search. B.A. No.1466/2021 3 The applicant was not present and his wife who was at home, at first refused their entry into the house and did not permit them to conduct a search. Even though an attempt was made to contact the applicant, he could not be reached. Search was conducted in his absence, and 6 kgms. of meat of different types were recovered from the refrigerator of the applicant. Subsequent lab examination of the meat revealed one part of it to be cattle meat, the other two were wild meat consisting of meats of wild boar and sambar. Consequently, the crime was registered. It is on the basis of the statement given by the wife of the applicant that the 2[nd] accused was implicated as the supplier of wild meat. The applicant states that he is innocent. Awaiting the Christmas celebrations, in anticipation of guests joining the celebrations, he had B.A. No.1466/2021 4 ordered purchase of meat and some of the employees in the estate had supplied 6 Kgms. of meat. He was under the belief that it was buffalo meat and pork. And it was stored in the refrigerator. He was not aware that the meat was that of any wild animal. He was never involved in any similar offences in the past. The applicant was a strict disciplinarian with regard to the employees of the Estate. This led to some employees keeping a grudge against him. In order to wreak vengeance, some of the employees played fraud upon him by supplying wild animal meat under the guise of buffalo meat and pork, and informed the forest officials with the intent to implicate him in a criminal case. He has been falsely implicated in this crime. He had approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail and was also granted interim bail. But after final B.A. No.1466/2021 5 hearing, the application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide Annexure A3. The applicant states that there is absolutely no material to indicate his involvement and his complicity in hunting wild meat and therefore, seeks pre-arrest bail. 4. Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Adv. Martin Jose for the applicant and the Smt. V. Sreeja, the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The second accused had also applied for anticipatory bail as B.A.No.792 of 2021 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 4.2.2021. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has reiterated the averments made in the application for bail stating that the applicant is innocent of all allegations and that he has not been involved in any criminal case and about his deliberate B.A. No.1466/2021 6 implication in a false case because of some employees conspiring against him due to animosity towards him. Even though the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the applicant has been framed in a fictitious case because some of the employees were inimically disposed towards him, there is no material to indicate that fact. The applicant was under the belief that what was supplied to him was beef and pork, which he had bought from his employees who used to rear cattle and supplied meat to him regularly. 6. In view of the fact that, there is no material to prima facie indicate that the employees of the applicant had intention to frame a false case against the applicant, I cannot accept the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, readily. The applicant is at liberty to prove his case during trial but B.A. No.1466/2021 7 that may require evidence. For the purpose of considering the application anticipatory bail, the complicity of the applicant is well established and in view of the decision of this High Court in Ramesh and Others v. State of Kerala [2010(1) KHC 745] the offence under the Wild Life Protection Act will have to be viewed seriously and the exceptional remedy of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the offenders under the Wild Life Protection Act. Hence, this Bail Application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks from today. The investigating officer shall interrogate the applicant and in the event of arrest, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate without delay, and if an application for bail is preferred by the applicant, the jurisdictional B.A. No.1466/2021 8 magistrate shall dispose of the said application preferably on the same day. **Sd/ASHOK MENON pkk JUDGE**