No Prima Facie Case Against Rapper Vedan: Kerala Court Says While Granting Bail In Case Over “Leopard Tooth”
While granting bail to Malayalam rapper 'Vedan' in a case over the alleged possession of a leopard tooth, a Kerala Court observed that the materials presented by the Forest Department did not establish a strong prima facie case under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972.Vedan, officially known as Hirandas V.M., was initially arrested by the Excise Department on April 29 in connection with the...
While granting bail to Malayalam rapper 'Vedan' in a case over the alleged possession of a leopard tooth, a Kerala Court observed that the materials presented by the Forest Department did not establish a strong prima facie case under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972.
Vedan, officially known as Hirandas V.M., was initially arrested by the Excise Department on April 29 in connection with the alleged possession of a small quantity of ganja. During the search, a separate case was registered by the Forest Department under the Wildlife Protection Act on the allegation that the pendant in his necklace contained a leopard tooth. While he was granted station bail in the NDPS case due to the minor quantity involved, he was remanded in custody for the non-bailable offence under Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
However, on April 30, upon the expiry of the initial custody period, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Perumbavoor, granted him bail, observing that no prima facie case had been made out. Vedan maintained that the pendant was a gift from a fan and that he was unaware of its nature or whether it contained a prohibited item.
In the bail order, the Court noted, "The item was not concealed and was publicly displayed during his performances. There is no allegation suggesting the petitioner's involvement in the hunting or extraction of the article from the animal. It is not even clear prima facie, whether the alleged article is an actual tooth from a leopard."
At the same time, the Court acknowledged that the offence under the Wildlife Act is of a serious nature, imposing strict liability, without the requirement of any mens rea. Also, the burden of proof is shited to the accused once a prohibited article is seized.
However, the Court also noted that there was no material establishing any prima facie case against him. The forensic examination regarding the nature of the seized article will take time.
Magistrate Sharath Kumar KJ observed in the order : "Now, regarding the twin conditions, the prosecution's submissions have been duly recorded and considered, thereby satistying the first condition under Section 51 A of the Act. At this stage, the prosecution's case is based solely on the recovery of the alleged leopard tooth, with no evidence linking the petitioner to hunting, trading, or unlawful acquisition of the article. He has no prior involvement in similar offences, and there remains a real possibility that the possession was neither wilful nor mala fide, or that the article may not, in fact, be a genuine leopard tooth. While forensic analysis may determine the authenticity of the article, the current materials do not establish a strong prima facie case against the petitioner. Given the isolated nature of the incident and the petitioner's expressed willingness to comply with any bail conditions, the likelihood of him commiting further wildlife-related offences appears minimal."
The Court also stressed the need to strike a balance between individual liberty.
"While the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 serves the vital purpose of safeguarding wildlife, the principles of fairness, proportionality, and individual liberty must guide bail orders. There is a need to balance conservation efforts with the fundamental rights of an individual. Bail cannot be denied solely on the gravity of the alleged offence in the absence of compelling evidence or possibility of interference with the investigation. To do so would undermine the presumption of innocence and violate the petitioner's right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
The Court also noted that there were no criminal antecedents against the accused, except the one case over possession of a small quantity of ganja.
The Court granted him bail subject to the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only ) with two sureties of like amount. He has also been directed to surrender his passport. Also, he has to report to the Range Officer Kodanad every Thursdays between 10:00 A.M and 12 PM or till the Form II Report / Chargesheet is filed.
The Court also restrained him from leaving the State of Kerala without its prior permission.