High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-03Bail granted to the applicant; anticipatory bai...

SHAHUL HAMEED P.A. v. THE STATE OF KERALA AND THE ASSISTANT WILDLIFE WARDEN, SULTHANBATHERY RANGE, SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No. 4145 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: VIJU ABRAHAM
Judgment Date: 2022-08-03
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed; the petitioner Shahul Hameed P.A. is granted anticipatory bail with conditions including bond, appearance, cooperation, non-tampering with evidence, no inducement of witnesses, and prohibition from committing another crime while on bail. The order also clarifies that police investigations may proceed and that if needed, an application may be filed for cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the applicant; anticipatory bail with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shahul Hameed P.A.

Respondents

The State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Assistant Wildlife Warden, Sulthanbathery Range, Sulthanbathery, Wayanad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Sreekumar (Sr.)
• P. Martin Jose
• P. Prijith Thomas
• P. Kuruvilla
• R. Githesh
• Ajay Ben Jose
• Manjunath Menon
• Sachin Jacob Ambat
• S. Harikrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shahul Hameed P.A., the sole accused in Crime No. 391/2021 of Sulthanbathery Police Station, seeks anticipatory bail in the Kerala High Court. The prosecution has charged him under sections 379 (theft), 426 (mischief), 406 (criminal breach of trust) IPC and Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act for allegedly cutting teak trees on patta land assigned to him. The petitioner asserts title and possession over the land, tracing ownership through patta No.1604/65, sale deed and tax receipts, and contends that government orders permitted tree felling on his property. Annexure-A5 (dated 11.03.2020) purportedly stated there is no restriction in cutting trees except sandalwood; Annexure-A7 clarified the owner need not pay the value of trees cut; relying on Annexures A5-A7, he claims to have obtained permission and cut teak in June 2020 with labor. He states a medical emergency and renal transplantation, and that he has no other criminal antecedents; Annexure-A6 is a hospital discharge summary; He argues that the earlier government permissions were cancelled only after the incident and that he acted in reliance on official orders. The State opposes bail, contending cancellation of permissions and possible violation of patta conditions, and arguing the seriousness of the offences. The court, noting an earlier not-to-arrest order, grants bail with conditions, emphasizing health concerns and Court’s authority to ensure investigations and prevent witness tampering.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 379 IPCSection 426 IPCSection 406 IPCSection 3(1) of PDPP Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends ownership and possession of the land, supported by patta No.1604/65, sale deed (2006) and tax receipts. He relied on Annexure-A5 (11.03.2020) indicating no restriction on cutting trees in the assigned land except sandalwood, and Annexure-A7 showing owner need not pay the value of trees. He asserts reliance on government orders permitting tree felling and submits that Annexures-A5 to A7 were cancelled only after the incident. He highlights his medical ailment (renal transplantation) and absence of prior criminal antecedents, arguing that bail is warranted for health reasons and to ensure fair investigation, with conditions to cooperate and not interfere with witnesses. The State alleges that the permissions were cancelled and that the petitioner violated patta conditions, the offences are serious (IPC 379, 426, 406, PDPP Act 3(1)), and bail should be denied or restricted to safeguard investigation and forest resources.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes anticipatory bail, arguing cancellation of government permissions (Annexures A5-A7) and that teak cutting violated patta conditions. The prosecution emphasizes the seriousness of the offences (theft, mischief, criminal breach of trust) and the need to prevent tampering with evidence and protect forest resources. It contends that reliance on permissions cannot bar investigation and that bail should be refused or conditioned to ensure cooperation and not hinder the ongoing inquiry.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to support the principle that police may investigate and recover even when a person is on bail, and that bail may be conditioned to protect the investigation.
Varghese v. State of Kerala	1964 KHC 213	Mentioned Only	Annexed as a judgment in the Appendix; no explicit discussion or reliance in the body of the judgment.
Rajan Babu P.T. and Anitha Chandra Babu and Anr	2011(3) KHC 320	Mentioned Only	Annexed as a judgment; no explicit treatment in the judgment body.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SHAHUL HAMEED P.A. v. THE STATE OF KERALA AND THE ASSISTANT WILDLIFE WARDEN, SULTHANBATHERY RANGE, SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 4145 OF 2021** **CRIME NO.391 OF 2021 OF SULTHANBATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD** **DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** SHAHUL HAMEED P.A.,AGED 55 YEARS S/O.SAYYED HASSAN THANGAL, P.V.S.HOUSE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) P.MARTIN JOSE P.PRIJITH THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R.GITHESH AJAY BEN JOSE MANJUNATH MENON SACHIN JACOB AMBAT S.HARIKRISHNAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031. 2 THE ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN, SULTHANBATHERY RANGE, SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **B.A. No. 4145 of 2021 2** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** **-------------------** ## **B.A. No. 4145 of 2021** **---------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of August, 2022** ## **ORDER** Application for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.391 of 2021 of Sulthanbathery Police Station. The offence alleged against him is under section 379, 426, 406 IPC and Section 3(1) of PDPP Act. 3. The allegation is that the petitioner had cut the Teak trees in the assigned land in his possession which is reserved with the Government. The FIR was registered on the basis of the information furnished by the 2[nd] respondent. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the land in question was originally assigned to one Puthanveettil Sayed Mohammed Kasi as per Annexure-A2 patta No.1604/65 dated 1.1.1970. The portion of the said land having 88½ cents of land was transferred ## **B.A. No. 4145 of 2021 3** to the name of one Abdul Aziz, who in turn by Annexure-A3 document assigned the same to the petitioner herein. The petitioner is having absolute ownership and possession of the property and has been paying basic tax as is evident from Annexure-A4 tax receipt. While so government issued Annexure-A5, whereby it was ordered that there is no restriction in cutting trees in the petitioner's property, except sandalwood trees. Pursuant to Annexure-A5, petitioner approached the 2[nd] respondent for permission to cut and remove the trees in the property and he was informed that in the light of Annexure-A5 no permission is required and on the basis of the same, in June 2020 the teak wood trees were cut down by engaging workers. In the meantime, petitioner fell ill and had to undergo Renal transplantation as is evident from Annexure-A6 certificate issued by the concerned hospital. Petitioner has a further case that the government ## **B.A. No. 4145 of 2021 4** itself clarified as per Annexure-A7 that the owner of the property need not pay value of trees cut and removed from the assigned property. On 7.6.2021 the 2[nd] respondent seized 192 pieces of teak wood cut and kept in the property of the petitioner and subsequently, Annexure-A1 crime was registered. The case of the petitioner is that he has cut and removed the trees only on the strength of the orders passed by the government. He further submits that he has no other criminal antecedents and he is now seriously ill. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order cancelling Annexures-5 to 7 was issued by the government only subsequent to the alleged incident. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for bail mainly contending that Annexure-A5 & A6 orders permitting, cutting and ## **B.A. No. 4145 of 2021 5** removing of the trees standing in the patta land was later cancelled by the government and further submits that he has also violated the conditions in the patta. 7. It is seen that a not to arrest order has been passed by this Court on 02.07.2021 and the same is still in force. Petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and is suffering from various ailments, as is evident from Annexure-A6. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The above bail application is allowed with the following directions. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 12.08.2022 and co- operate with the investigation. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.391 of 2021 of Sulthanbathery Police Station, the petitioner shall ## **B.A. No. 4145 of 2021 6** be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and shall be released on bail on the following conditions: _(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;_ _(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.391 of 2021 of Sulthanbathery Police Station as and when summoned to do so;_ _(iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever so required;_ _(iv) Petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence;_ _(v) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;_ _(vi) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail._ ## **B.A. No. 4145 of 2021 7** If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.391 of 2021 of Sulthanbathery Police Station, may file an application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the information if any given by the petitioner even when the petitioner is on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in **Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663).** sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE** pm ## **B.A. No. 4145 of 2021 8** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4145/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.391 OF 2021 OF SULTHANBATHERY POLICE STATION. Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF PATTA NO.1604/65 DATED 01.01.1970 ISSUED FROM NOOLPUZHA VILLAGE. Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.126 OF 2006 DATED 12.01.2006. Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.11.2020 ISSUED FROM NOOLPUZHA VILLAGE. Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.U3/187/2019/REVENUE DATED 11.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 28.12.2020 ISSUED FROM MEITRA HOSPITAL TO THE PETITIONER. Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.NO.261/2020/REVENUE DATED 24.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN VARGHESE V.STATE OF KERALA 1964 KHC 213. Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN RAJAN BABU P.T. AND ANOTHER V.ANITHA CHANDRA BABU AND ANOTHER 2011(3) KHC 320.