Sameer v. State of Kerala

1 BA No.2587 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2587 OF 2024 CRIME NO.02/2024 OF Sholayur Forest Station Office, Palakkad ``` ``` PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` SAMEER AGED 35 YEARS S/O. UNNENKUTTY, THODANGAL HOUSE, ARIPRA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679324 BY ADV C.M.KAMMAPPU ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` Sr PP Smt Neema T.V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.2587 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.2587 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the third accused in OR No.2/2024 of the Sholayur Forest Range Office, Palakkad, registered against the accused ( three in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 27(i)(e)(iv) & 47C, 47F, 47G, 47H, 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and Secs. 2(16), 9, 29, 31, 39, 50, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972. The petitioner was arrested on 6.3.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had 3 BA No.2587 of 2024 trespassed into the Government Forest area in VeetikundChavadiyur Malayaram in VFC item 118 and killed two deers, and further, sandal wood was found in the car of the first accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Kammappu C.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 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 link the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. Allegedly, the contraband articles were seized from the vehicle of the first accused. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 6.3.2024, the investigation , so far as it relates to the petitioner, is 4 BA No.2587 of 2024 practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to show the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. The contraband articles were seized from the car of the first accused. The first accused is absconding. Therefore, the investigation in the case is not complete. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 6.3.2024. 6. The prosecution allegations against the accused are that, they had trespassed into the Government forest area and killed two deers and also stole sandal wood from the forest area. 5 BA No.2587 of 2024 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 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 a 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 compassionate manner. 9. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that 6 BA No.2587 of 2024 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 materials placed on record and the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 6.3.2024, that the investigation, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is practically complete and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties 7 BA No.2587 of 2024 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. 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; (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 8 BA No.2587 of 2024 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. (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]. sd/- sks/4.4.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**