Chattisgarh High Court
Prabodh Kumar Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 December, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8681 of 2021
1.
Dashrath S/o Aged About 32 Years.
2. Sunwa, Aged About 30 Years.
Both are S/o Somaru Korva R/o Village - Adhaura, Police Station-Balrampur,
District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Forest Range Officer, Balrampur, District
- Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
---- Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Mr. Hariom Rai,
Advocates
For Non Applicant : Shri K. K. Singh, G. A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
21.12.2021
1. The applicants have preferred the first bail application under Section
439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as they are in jail since
24.09.2021 in connection with Forest Crime No.13596/2016 registered
at Police Station- The Forest Range Officer, Balrampur, District-
Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 33(1)(क)(ग)(च)(ज) of Indian Forest Act, 17(क), 51(1) of Wild
Life Protection Act and 3(1)(क) of the Prevention of damage to public
property Act.
2. The case of prosecution in brief, is that, on 24.09.2021, the present
applicants have entered into the forest area with intention of illegal
occupying the forest land of Balrampur Zone, were cut down total 64
pieces of Sal, Saja, Tendu, Haldu, Awla, Tinsa and other species of
trees. On the basis of aforesaid information offence Under Section
33(1)(क)(ग)(च)(ज) of Indian Forest Act, 17(क), 51(1) of Wild Life
Protection Act and 3(1)(क) of the Prevention of damage to public
property Act have been registered against the applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that registration of
crime by the Forest Officer without authority as per the law laid down
by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court as well as judgment passed by
High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Anand Kumar Goenka Vs.
State of M.P. and others in Criminal Revision No.604/97 reported in
2001(3)MPLJ272, he would further submit that the remedy available to
the Forest Officer for filing a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC and
they can not register the offence themselves.
4. This Court has called the S.D.O., Bilaspur to assist this Court. In
pursuance of direction the S.D.O. is present before this Court along
with State counsel and would submit that as per Section 64 of Indian
Forest Act, 1927, any Forest-Officer or Police Officer may, without
orders from the Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person
against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been
concerned in any forest-offence punishable with imprisonment for one
month or upwards, therefore, proceeding initiated by Forest
Department against applicants is justified and he would further refer
Section 72 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as per Section 72, the State
Government may invest any Forest-Officer with all or of the following
powers, they are as under:-
(a) Power to enter upon any land and to survey, demarcate and
make a map of the same;
(b) the powers of a Civil Court to compel the attendance of
witnesses and the production of documents and material objects;
(c) power to issue a search-warrant under the Code of Criminal
procedure, 1898(5 of 1898)*; and
(d) power to hold an inquiry into forest-offences, and, in the
course of such inquiry, to receive and record evidence.
Section 72(2) further provides that evidence recorded under Section 72
shall be admissible in subsequent trial before a Magistrate. He would
also refer Para 77(A)(1) of the Forest Manual and would submit that
the State Government has authorized Range Forest-Officer and DFO
to investigate the Forest offence for certain procedure as provided in
Para 77(A)(4) of Forest Manual. Therefore, the learned Government
Advocate would submit that the proceedings initiated by them is legal
and justified and they have rightly been arrested for commission of
offence under the Forest Act.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that
applicant is in jail since 24.09.2021, more than 3 months has already
been lapsed. The Section 33(1)(क)(ग)(च)(ज) of Indian Forest Act,
provides that a minimum sentence for the offence shall be one year,
Section 17(क), 51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act provides that a
minimum sentence for the offence shall be 3 years and Section 3(1)
(क) of the Prevention of damage to public property Act provides that a
minimum sentence for the offence shall be one year. Considering the
fact that trial may take some time, therefore, without commenting
anything on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case
to enlarge the applicants on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicants is allowed and it is
directed that applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties of
Rs.25,000/-each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court. They shall appear before the trial Court on each
and every date given by the said trial Court, till disposal of the trial.
8. It is made clear that applicants shall not involve himself in any offence
of similar nature in future, otherwise bail granted to them shall be
liable to be cancelled without further reference to the bench.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Parul
