Full Judgment
BAIL APPL. NO. 889 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 15TH MAGHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 889 OF 2025 CRIME NO.23/2024 OF * Kasaragod Forest Range Office, Kasargod PETITIONER/S: DIVAKARAN P AGED 47 YEARS MAVILA VEEDU, KOTTODI, KALLAR VILLAGE, KASARGOD, PIN - 671532 BY ADV P.K.SUBHASH RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 NOUSHAD K.A. (PP)
* The name of the Forest Range Office and the FIR type stand corrected as ‘Kanhangad Forest Range’ and ‘ Occurrance Report No.23/2024’ respectively in the cause title and head note of the final order, as per order dated 03.04.2025 in Crl.M.A.No.1/2025. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 889 OF 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.889 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in O.R.No.23/2024 of Kanhangad Forest Range. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 2(16) (a), b,2(35), 9, 51, 52 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Amendment Act 2022) and Sections 27(1)(e)(iv) of Forest Act, 1961 (Amendment Act 2010).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 07.12.2024 the
Section Officer, Panathady Section and his team were on patrol duty at Panathady Reserve Forest, they found unauthorised entry by the accused No.1 to 3 into the reserved forest. Accused were found to have holding guns and and cartridges. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on the spot and it is alleged that the petitioner herein ran away from the place of occurrence and thus the accused committed the above offences.
BAIL APPL. NO. 889 OF 2025 3
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner hunted any wild animal. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is having a licensed gun. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he is involved in another forest offence.
7. This Court considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. This Court is of the view that the allegations against the petitioner is serious. But, a perusal of the prosecution case would show that there is no allegation against
the petitioner and other accused that they hunted any wild animal. They were seen in the reserved forest holding guns and cartridges. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, accused Nos.1 and 2 were already arrested and they were BAIL APPL. NO. 889 OF 2025 4 released on the same day.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not essential.
10. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the
earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
11. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder.
“12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and
BAIL APPL. NO. 889 OF 2025 5 the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994
(1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994
Cri LJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”
12. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
13. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on BAIL APPL. NO. 889 OF 2025 6
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
6. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer BAIL APPL. NO. 889 OF 2025 7
to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020
(1) KHC 663].
7. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. sd/ P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE jm/