The High Court of Kerala dismissed the applicant's anticipatory bail application regarding alleged sandalwood theft under the Kerala Forest Act, directing surrender for custodial interrogation.
Petitioner directed to surrender by October 4, 2019 for interrogation; bail application to be decided by Magistrate post-interrogation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 28TH BHADRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.5318 OF 2019
O.R.NO.4/2019 OF MUPLIYAM FOREST STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
SHARAFUDHEEN.K.P., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.MOOSAHAJI.K.P., KULUKKAMPARA, PARASSERI, THENKARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 THE DEPUTY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MUPLIYAM FOREST STATION 680 312.
SMT.NIMA JACOB, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.5318 of 2019
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===========================
B.A.No.5318 of 2019
===========================
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.2 in the forest crime registered as per Occurrence Report O.R.No.4/2019 of Mupliyam Forest Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.27(1) e(iii), (iv)(v), 47G and 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
B.A.No.5318 of 2019
3
there are no materials collected by the Forest Officer to even remotely connect the petitioner with any of the allegation in the instant forest crime. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (A2) that the petitioner is suffering from serious ailments and has suffered a stroke and Annexures-I and II produced along with the bail application are stated to be the copies of the medical records in relation to the ailments of the petitioner.
B.A.No.5318 of 2019
4
only on the next day (03.04.2019) at about 4.10 p.m. and further that the statements of the other accused persons would show that the main planning and conspiracy has been initiated and completed at the instance of the petitioner (A2) and that he is the main culprit in the above forest crime. Further that accused Nos.3 to 6 are labourers, who have been brought from Tamil Nadu for the purpose of illegally cutting the sandalwood trees from the forest area concerned and that the said labourers had been arranged by A-1 at the instance of A-2 and further that the confession statement of A-1 would show that there was previous deals between A-1 & A-2 for illegal removal of such sandalwood timber from the forest area, etc. More crucially, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly imperative for the smooth and effective conduct of the investigation in this case and that this Court may not grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
B.A.No.5318 of 2019
5
or that it is not necessary. For the purpose of consideration of the anticipatory bail application, the abovesaid factual aspects canvassed by the learned Prosecutor would clearly suggest that the role of the petitioner (A-2) has been brought out and that further aspects of the matters are to be ferreted out in the investigation process and therefore, this Court is not in a position to hold that the stand of the Investigating Officer regarding the requirement of the petitioner for custodial interrogation is unnecessary or unwarranted and hence, this Court is not in a position to accede to the plea of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.
(i) The petitioner will immediately surrender before the competent Forest Officer concerned in relation to this forest crime, without any
B.A.No.5318 of 2019
6
further delay, at any rate by 9 a.m. on any day on or before 04.10.2019.
(ii) The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Forest Officer in the above interrogation process.
(iii) After the interrogation process is over, the authorized Forest Officer concerned will produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate's Court concerned. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate will consider and pass orders on the bail application of the petitioner on the same day of his production, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor and after taking due note of the facts and circumstances of this case. It is made clear that it is for the learned Magistrate to independently exercise his discretion on the plea of the petitioner for grant of bail, after hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and attendant circumstances of this case.
With these observations and directions, the above anticipatory bail application will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
vgd/20.09.19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted considering the petitioner's medical ailments and lack of direct evidence connecting him to the offence.
Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the effective conduct of the investigation.
Sharafudheen.K.P.
The State of Kerala
Alexander Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
