Kerala High Court Grants Bail to 70-Year-Old Accused in Leopard Killing Case, Citing Age and Lack of Direct Evidence
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, on 9 October 2025, granted bail to a 70-year-old man accused of killing a leopard in a reserve forest in Thrissur district. The petitioner was arrested on allegations under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, for allegedly laying a cable trap leading to the death of the animal. The Court allowed the bail application considering the petitioner’s age, the period of custody, and the absence of sufficient material linking him directly to the alleged act.
The case arose from an incident dated 23 September 2025, wherein a leopard was found dead with injuries from a cable trap in a reserve forest under the Pariyaram Forest Range Office, Thrissur. The authorities registered O.R. No. 01 of 2025 against the petitioner, invoking Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, and Sections 2(16), 9, and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had allegedly set up a trap in the reserve forest, resulting in the killing of the wild animal. He was subsequently arrested on 25 September 2025 and remained in custody thereafter.
During the bail hearing, the petitioner argued that the accusations were unfounded and that the petitioner had been wrongly implicated. The counsel contended that there was no direct evidence to prove that the trap was placed inside a reserve forest. He stated that, even if the trap were assumed to belong to the petitioner, it could not conclusively establish that it was set within protected forest limits. It was further submitted that the petitioner, who is aged and physically handicapped, had been made a scapegoat for acts committed by unidentified persons.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, asserting that the offence was grave in nature since it involved the killing of a protected animal under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The prosecutor submitted that continued detention was warranted as the case concerned the illegal killing of a scheduled wild species in a reserve forest area, and the investigation was ongoing.
The Court noted that the allegations involved a cable trap allegedly laid to prevent wild animal intrusion. However, “though the prosecution alleges that the cable trap was kept in a reserve forest, prima facie, there are no materials available to indicate as to who had laid the cable trap or the place where the trap was laid.” The Court further observed that “there is nothing available to indicate the place where the trap was laid with a cable trap.”
Justice Thomas stated that, taking into account “the period of custody already undergone and also the fact that the petitioner is seventy years old,” further detention was not required. The Court thus determined that continued incarceration would serve no purpose, given the lack of definitive proof and the petitioner’s advanced age.
In summarizing its reasoning, the Court stated that there was no conclusive indication regarding the ownership of the cable trap or the exact location of its placement. The judicial order carefully balanced the seriousness of the offence with the evidentiary gaps and humanitarian considerations. “Taking into reckoning the period of custody already undergone and also the fact that the petitioner is seventy years old... further detention is not necessary.” The Court also acknowledged the petitioner’s physical condition, supported by a medical certificate issued by the District Hospital, Thrissur, in 2003, identifying him as physically handicapped.
The Court ordered that the “petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.” It directed that the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer as and when required during the course of the investigation.
“The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.” The order also mandated that the petitioner must not commit any similar offences while on bail. “The jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri. Manumon A., Shri. Rebin Vincent Gralan, Shri. Suresh C., Smt. Edathara Vineeta Krishnan, Smt. Rosna M. Joy, Smt. Gayathri E.S., Smt. Athira Suresh, Shri. John Christo T.P., Shri. Akshay Kumar C.S., Smt. Liniya Loveson, Smt. Anjali N.S., and Sri. Jayan Kuttichakku.
For the Respondents: Shri. Prasanth M.P., Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: Baby V.J. v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:74652
Case Number: Bail Application No. 12382 of 2025
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
