Pribin Shajan v. State of Kerala and The Deputy Range Officer, Mupliyam Forest Station

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. BADHARUDEEN
Judgment Date: 2023-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed; the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail with conditions including surrender of the vehicle, appearance for interrogation, bond requirement, and no intimidation of witnesses or involvement in further offences.
Final Disposition: Anticipatory bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pribin Shajan

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
The Deputy Range Officer, Mupliyam Forest Station, Inchankundu (P.O), Thrissur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv Nireesh Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P.G. Manu, Senior Public Prosecutor
• Smt. T.V. Neema, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Pribin Shajan, the petitioner/accused in bail petitions No. 1790/2023 and 1797/2023, is arraigned as the 6th and 7th accused in two ORs of Mupliyam Forest Station, Thrissur, concerning alleged sandalwood theft from a Notified Reserve Forest. The common allegations are about transport of sandalwood cut and removed in the two crimes, with the accused allegedly discharging the role of moving the wood in his taxi. The petitioner contends his involvement is limited to transporting sandalwood entrusted by a confessor, Thomas Midhun, and possibly by associates Manu and another friend, with no role in the actual theft or procurement. He relies on his lack of direct involvement and the confession statement’s limited thrust to show innocence. The State contends otherwise, arguing the petitioner had knowledge of the transport of sandalwood from within the forest, where taxi usage is prohibited, and that he is closely associated with a notorious sandalwood offender (Veerappan Joy). Given these factors, the court acknowledges the need for investigation and custodial interrogation but finds that anticipatory bail can be granted with strict conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent interference with witnesses. The order permits the petitioner to be released on bail subject to specified conditions, including surrender, vehicle production, bonds, and regular appearance for interrogation and reporting while safeguarding the investigation framework.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Forest Act, 1961 — Sections 27(i)(e)(iii)(iv), 47C(1) and 47G

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Deemed custody

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his role is limited to transporting sandalwood entrusted by Thomas Midhun and possibly Manu; he argues the confession record points to others performing the substantive acts, and there is no direct involvement in extraction or procurement. He asserts that custodial interrogation is unnecessary and that pre-arrest bail with reasonable conditions will safeguard the investigation; he seeks protection against arbitrary arrest and insists on cooperation with authorities.

Contentions of Respondents

The State asserts the petitioner had knowledge of sandalwood transport from within the forest and is connected with a notorious sandalwood offender, thus challenging innocence and demanding custody for interrogation. It argues that the transport in a non-permitted vehicle is an offense and that investigation should proceed with custodial interrogation, with vigilance to prevent tampering with witnesses; hence bail should be denied or guarded with stringent conditions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1790 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.1/2022 OF MUPLIYAM FOREST STATION, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **PRIBIN SHAJAN AGED 34 YEARS S/O.SHAJAN JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHATHEDAM, THURUTHIPURAM (P.O), PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 680667** ## **BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE DEPUTY RANGE OFFICER MUPLIYAM FOREST STATION, INCHANKUNDU (P.O), THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680312 BY SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2023 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.1797/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **2** ## **BAIL APPL. NOs. 1790 & 1797 OF 2023** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 1797 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.13/2021 OF MUPLIYAM FOREST STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **PRIBIN SHAJAN AGED 34 YEARS S/O.SHAJAN JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHATHEDAM, THURUTHIPURAM (P.O), PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 680667** **BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **2 THE DEPUTY RANGE OFFICER MUPLIYAM FOREST STATION, INCHANKUNDU (P.O), THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680312** **BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 14.03.2023 ALONG WITH BA NO.1790/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL. NOs. 1790 & 1797 OF 2023** **3** ## **COMMON ORDER** Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2023 In bail application No.1790/2023, Pribin Shajan, who got arrayed as 7[th] accused in O.R.No.1/2022 of Mupliyam Forest Station, Thrissur District seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The same petitioner canvasses anticipatory bail in O.R.No.13/2021 of Mulpliyam Forest Station, where he got arrayed as 6[th] accused. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. 4. I have perused the case diary and report as such placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. In OR No.1/2022, the allegation is that the 7[th] accused/petitioner carried the stolen sandalwood trees from Kodassery 'Notified Reserve Forest' entrusted by the other accused in his car. In this crime, the prosecution alleges **BAIL APPL. NOs. 1790 & 1797 OF 2023** **4** commission of offences punishable under Sections 27(i)(e)(iii) (iv), 47C(1) and 47G of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. In O.R.No.13/2021 also, the allegation is one and the same, and the complicity of the petitioner is in the matter of transport of sandalwood trees cut and removed in the said crime in his car. 6. While pursuing the relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that based on the confession statement given by one Thomas Midhun @ Midhun, this petitioner got arrayed as an accused in both cases, since he had given confession statement in O.R. No.1/2022, to the effect that the sandalwood cut and removed in both crimes were transported in the vehicles provided by Manu and his friend Pribin. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a taxi driver and he did not have any role in this crime and if at all the confession statement is given emphasis, the same would go to show that the petitioner **BAIL APPL. NOs. 1790 & 1797 OF 2023** **5** simply transported what have been entrusted by Thomas Midhun @ Midhun and therefore, the petitioner is innocent. 8. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is having knowledge in the matter of transport of sandalwood, after loading the same from inside the reserve forest, where taxi was not permitted. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a close associate of Joy @ Veerappan Joy (A4 in O.R.No.1/2022). Since veerappan Joy involved in 25 cases of sandalwood and wildlife crimes, the petitioner also has knowledge regarding the crime and therefore, absolute innocence, as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be believed eschewing the prosecution records. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary in this case and therefore, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted. 9. The report of the Investigating Officer and the confession statement of Thomas Midhun would go to show **BAIL APPL. NOs. 1790 & 1797 OF 2023** **6** that the petitioner came into picture based on the confession statement given by Thomas Midhun @ Midhun. Therefore, investigation in this regard is absolutely necessary to unearth the role of the petitioner in this crime. The case put up by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no knowledge regarding the crime, cannot be digested, since he had loaded sandalwood trees from the forest, where taxi car is not permissible without special permission. However, his role is confined to that of transport of sandalwood in this case, as such, investigation is possible even without custodial interrogation and the interrogation can be effected by way of deemed custody. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, on conditions, with specific direction to co-operate with the investigation and to produce the vehicle alleged to be used for transport of sandalwood. Accordingly, these petitions stand allowed and the petitioner can be enlarged on bail, on the following conditions: **BAIL APPL. NOs. 1790 & 1797 OF 2023** **7** i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer along with the vehicle alleged to be used for transport of sandalwood within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner for two days in between 10.00 am to 1.00 pm. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself. ii. iii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) by himself and by two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so. Further, he shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Wednesdays between 9.00 am and 10.00 am for four weeks from the date of his release on bail. **BAIL APPL. NOs. 1790 & 1797 OF 2023** **8** iv. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner. v. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. **Sd/-** **A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE** nkr