Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rafi vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2448 OF 2024
OR NO.2/2024 OF SHOLAYUR FOREST STATION OFFICE, PALAKKAD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.4 AND 5:
1 MUHAMMED RAFI,
AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. ISHAK,
KARATTUTHODI HOUSE, PAPPINIPPARA, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 122.
2 MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA,
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ANSAR,
PARATHODI HOUSE, SHAPPINKUNNU, PULPPATTA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 123.
BY ADVS.
P.SAMSUDIN
LIRA A.B.
NASRIN WAHAB
DEVIKA E.D.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV. PRASANTH M P (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2448/2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
----------------------------------------
B.A.No.2448 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal
Procedure Code.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5 in
O.R.No.2/2024 of Sholayur Forest Station Office, Palakkad
district. The above case is registered against the petitioners and
others alleging offences punishable under Sections 27(i)(e),
(iv)(iii) & 47C, 47F, 47G, 47H, 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961
and Sections 2(16), 9, 29, 31, 50, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972.
3. The prosecution case is that, the accused persons
trespassed into the Government Forest area in Veetikund-
Chavadiyur Malavaram, killed two deers, and were also found in
possession of sandalwood illegally. The petitioners were arrested
on 06-03-2024.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners had not committed any offence and they are
ready to abide by any condition if this Court grant them bail. The
learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application
and submitted that serious forest offences are alleged against the
petitioners.
5. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But the
petitioners are 4th and 5th accused. They are in custody from
06-03-2024. A perusal of Annexure-A1 order passed by the
learned Magistrate dismissing the bail application, would not
show that the forest officials reported any criminal antecedents
against the petitioners before the learned Magistrate, while
considering the bail application. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be
allowed after imposing stringent conditions. If any similar
offences are committed by the petitioners, the investigating
officer is free to file appropriate application before the
jurisdictional court to cancel the bail and in such an event, the
learned Magistrate is free to pass appropriate orders, even
though this bail order is passed by this Court. With the above
condition, bail application can be allowed.
6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail
is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement
(2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier
judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail
remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and
refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the
opportunity of securing fair trial.
7. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following
directions:
i. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the jurisdictional Court.
ii. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer
for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners
shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not,
directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise 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.
iii. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the
jurisdictional Court.
iv. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is suspected.
v. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer
on all Mondays at 10.00 A.M. till final report is filed.
vi. If any of the above conditions are violated by the
petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in
accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this
Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
ats
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2448/2024
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-03-2024 IN
CRL MP 62/2024 OF THE FILES OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS COURT,
ATTAPPADY
