Allowed

C.K.Muhammed Shareef v. Divisional Forest Officer

Kerala HC21 Dec 2021Bail Appl./5113/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to a timber merchant accused of illegally cutting and transporting teak and rosewood trees under the Kerala Forest Act and Rules. The court noted no evidence of forged permits and allowed bail pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail; directed to surrender within two weeks and execute bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

C.K.Muhammed Shareef Vs Divisional Forest Officer — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 5113 OF 2021

¶6

O.R.NO.15 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

C.K.MUHAMMED SHAREEF

¶9

AGED 58 YEARS, S/O ALAVI, CHENNAMKULANGARA HOUSE, PROPRIETOR CEE KAYEES TIMBERS, VANIYAMBALAM, MALAPPURAM-679 339.

¶10

BY ADVS. C.R.REGHUNATHAN B.HARRYLAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 003.

¶13

2 FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MACHAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 582.

¶14

SRI M.C.ASHI- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

B.A.No.5113 of 2021

¶18

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶19

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶20

B.A.No. 5113 of 2021

¶21

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶22

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2021

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶25

The petitioner is the accused in O.R.No.15 of 2021

¶26

pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery. The offences alleged are in respect of the provisions of Rules 3 and 4, which are punishable under Rule 7 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995 and also under the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

¶27

The allegations are that teak and rosewood trees

¶28

were cut down from the revenue land within the limits of Elanadu Forest Station and were transported without any authority, but using false documents by the petitioner. He had purchased the timber on the intervention of another person, namely, Shameer, from the owners of the land, who are

¶29

¶30

B.A.No.5113 of 2021

¶31

holding Patta. By cutting and removing such trees in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner has committed the offences stated above.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner purchased the timber on the basis of Annexure 2 agreement and transported the timber after obtaining permits from the competent authority, the Forest Range Officer, having jurisdiction over the area. Annexure 3 series are transit permits. It is further submitted that at the time of cutting down and transporting the timber, Annexures 1(a) and 1(b) Government Orders were in force allowing cutting down of such trees. It is only thereafter that those orders were cancelled by another Government Order, Annexure 1(c). Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the alleged offence will not be attracted to this case.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

¶35

¶36

B.A.No.5113 of 2021

¶37

would contend that even as per the provisions in the Patta issued in respect of a property from where the trees were cut and removed, trees planted by the Pattadar alone could be cut and removed and the forest trees are not allowed to be cut and removed by the Pattadar.

¶38

The rival contention with respect to the commission of the offence cannot be decided or rather not required to be decided at this stage. It is a matter for trial. What prima facie emanates from the documents available on record is that the petitioner, who is a timber merchant on a bonafide belief, purchased the trees and transported them. There is no case that Annexure 3 series permits are forged ones. All such documents are available with the investigating agency. Entire timbers in question have been seized as well. In order for the progress of the remaining part of the investigation, it appears unnecessary that the petitioner is detained in custody during the period of investigation. Therefore, the petitioner can be granted pre-arrest bail.

¶39

In such circumstances, this bail application is

¶40

¶41

B.A.No.5113 of 2021

¶42

allowed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶43

(i) Once released on bail, he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and he shall cooperate with the investigation;

¶44

(ii) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and

¶45

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

¶46

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶49

dkr

C.K.Muhammed Shareef v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Muhammed Shareef v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Musthafa T.V Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ismail E.K. Vs State of Kerala

Arunputhran (Shaji) Vs State of Kerala

Anitha Babu, Vs State of Kerala

Shaji., Vs the State of Kerala

David Joseph Vs State of Kerala