Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942 CRIME NO.8/2020 OF POONGODE FOREST STATION OFFICE, THRISSUR PETITIONER: ABOOBACKER AGED 63 YEARS SON OF MUHAMMED, KALLINGAPADATHIL HOUSE, VARAVOOR P.O, THRISSUR - 680585 BY ADV. SRI.E.A.HARIS RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT: SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 26th day of February 2021 This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No. 8
of 2020 Poongode Forest Station, Thrissur for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 47A, 47C, 47G and 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
05.12.2020, on the basis of secret information received by the Section Forest Officer of the aforesaid Forest Station, he and his party conducted a search at the house of the petitioner and recovered two sandalwood pieces weighing of 0.847 gms and 0.728 gms respectively. Two choppers and a wooden log allegedly used for the purpose of cutting sandalwood trees were also recovered.
4. The applicant states that he is innocent and the
allegations are not true. He is a senior citizen aged 63 years having co-morbidities, he had undergone surgery and the incarceration of the applicant would cause harassment to him and a threat to his life. It admitted by the applicant that, he was earlier made an accused in another crime and after trial, found guilty by the Wadakancherry Judicial First Class Magistrate, and convicted. But in appeal, he was found not guilty and acquitted as per Annexure-3 judgment of the appellate court, and therefore, he does not have any criminal antecedents and hence, seeks pre-arrest bail.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that
sandalwood has been seized from his house and that, he has committed a very grave offence under the Forest Act, and therefore, he is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been informed about the acquittal of the accused in the earlier case, and therefore, submitted that he has criminal antecedents as well. The quantity of sandalwood that was seized from the applicant is two small pieces of sandalwood weighing less than 1 gram each.
7. Under the circumstances, the learned counsel
appearing for the applicant submits that, it has negligible value and therefore, he may not be incarcerated for the purpose of such pieces of sandalwood. Moreover, it is stated that, even if the sandalwood was recovered from his house, it would have been the contraband that was earlier allegedly seized from his house in connection with the crime in which he was acquitted. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail.
8. After having heard submissions on both sides, I find that though an offence under the Forest Act is very grave, and it is also true that he has been allegedly caught red-handed for possessing sandalwood. But the sandalwood pieces are tiny and two choppers cannot be
said to have been used only for cutting sandalwood. There is no indication that the sandalwood that was recovered was from freshly cut trees. Moreover, the applicant is an aged man having undergone surgery, and his physical condition is fragile, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required. He is willing to co- operate with the investigation.
Hence, the application is allowed, the applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of his arrest, after interrogation and recovery if any, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on the following conditions:
(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 am to 12.00 noon for a period of three months or till filling of the final report, whichever is earlier.
(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence witnesses.
(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period. In case of the breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court. (Sd/-) ASHOK MENON JUDGE LU