Hassan v. State of Kerala and Range Forest Officer

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3366 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.09/2024 OF Ottapalam Forest Range Office, Palakkad ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2024 IN CRMC NO.1952 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` HASSAN AGED 46 YEARS S/O.MARAKKAR, PUTHUKATTIL HOUSE, ONGALLUR POST, VADANAKURISSI RED GATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679313 ``` ## **`BY ADV K.RAKESH`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2 THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER FOREST RANGE OFFICE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679122 ``` ## **`BY SMT. NEEMA. T.V`** ## **`SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No. 3366 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 23[rd] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused in OR No.09/2024 of the Ottappalam Forest Range Office, Palakkad, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 47 A, 47 B, 47 C, 47 D, 47 E, 47 F, 47 G, 47 H, 52(1) 61 A, and 63 of the Kerala Forest Act. The petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 12.03.2024, the accused was found in possession of sandalwood pieces without any license. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. K. Rakesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema. T.V., the **B.A. No. 3366 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to show that the petitioner has committed the above offences. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, these applications may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it can be seen that the petitioner was in judicial **B.A. No. 3366 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 8. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P** ., [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and **B.A. No. 3366 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` compassionate manner. 9. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on comprehending the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, that the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing **B.A. No. 3366 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure 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 or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; **B.A. No. 3366 of 2024** ``` 7 ``` (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law; (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below; ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No. 3366 of 2024** (vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer 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].** mtk/23.04.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**