Kerala High Court
Basheer @ Muihammed Basheer vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
1
2025:KER:767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 11305 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1/2024 OF KOLLENGODE FOREST RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl.
NO.10523 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/ ACCUSED NO.4:
ABDUL SALEEM K.P.
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA HAJI,
KULUKKAMPARA, PARASSERY, THENKARA,
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582
BY ADV BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER
THEKKADY FOREST RANGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678507
BY ADV. SRI. G. SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail
Appl..11299/2024, 11301/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
2
2025:KER:767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 11299 OF 2024
CRIME NO.4/2024 OF Alathur Forest Range Office, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl.
NO.10519 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL SALEEM K.P.
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA HAJI,
KULUKKAMPARA, PARASSERY, THENKARA,
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582
BY ADV BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER
ALATHUR FOREST RANGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678541
BY ADV. SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail
Appl..11305/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
3
2025:KER:767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 11301 OF 2024
CRIME NO.4/2024 OF Sungam Asst. Wild Life Warden, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl.
NO.10537 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL SALEEM K.P.
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA HAJI,
KULUKKAMPARA, PARASSERY, THENKARA,
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582
BY ADV BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER
SUNGAM FOREST RANGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 642 107
BY ADV. SRI. RENJITH GEORGE, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail
Appl..11305/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
4
2025:KER:767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 11306 OF 2024
CRIME NO.5/2024 OF Pattikkad Forest Range Office, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2024 IN CMP
NO.8559 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -
III,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:
1 BASHEER @ MUIHAMMED BASHEER
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KONNADAN
HOUSE, THENKARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678582
2 ABDUL SALEEM K.P.
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA HAJI, KULUKKAMPARA,
PARASSERY, THENKARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678582
BY ADV BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 THE DEPUTY RANGE OFFICER
PATTIKKAD FOREST STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680652
BY ADV. SRI. G. SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..11305/2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
5
2025:KER:767
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 and 11301 of 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of January, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. These bail applications are
connected and therefore, I am disposing of these
cases by a common order.
2. The petitioner in BA No.11305/2024 is
an accused in OR No.1/2024 of Kollengode Forest
Range Office, Palakkad. The petitioners in BA
No.11306/2024 are accused in OR No.5/2024 of
Pattikkad Forest Range Office, Thrissur. The
petitioners in BA Nos.11301/2024 and
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
2025:KER:767
11299/2024 are accused in Alathur Forest Range
Office, Palakkad.
3. The prosecution case is that, the
accused are the recipients of sandal wood which
was cut and removed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in
these cases. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners in these cases are
in custody from 09.11.2024 onwards. The
counsel also submitted that the petitioners are
ready to abide any conditions imposed by this
Court, if this Court grant them bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the bail application. The Public Prosecutor
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
2025:KER:767
submitted that the allegation against the
petitioners are serious.
7. It is true that the allegations against the
petitioners in these cases are serious. But, the
fact remains that the petitioners are in custody
from 09.11.2024 onwards. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and also
considering the fact that the petitioners are in
custody from 09.11.2024, I think, bail can be
granted to the petitioners after imposing stringent
conditions.
8. 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
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
2025:KER:767
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.
9. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union
of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that:
"21. Before we part with the Judgment,
we must mention here that the Special
Court and the High Court did not
consider the material in the charge
sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was
more on the activities of PFI, and
therefore, the appellant's case could not
be properly appreciated. When a case is
made out for a grant of bail, the Courts
should not have any hesitation in
granting bail. The allegations of the
prosecution may be very serious. But,
the duty of the Courts is to consider the
case for grant of bail in accordance with
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
2025:KER:767
the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an
exception" is a settled law. Even in a
case like the present case where there
are stringent conditions for the grant of
bail in the relevant statutes, the same
rule holds good with only modification
that the bail can be granted if the
conditions in the statute are satisfied.
The rule also means that once a case is
made out for the grant of bail, the Court
cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts
start denying bail in deserving cases, it
will be a violation of the rights
guaranteed under Art.21 of our
Constitution." (underline supplied)
10. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that:
"53. The Court further observed that, over
a period of time, the trial courts and the
High Courts have forgotten a very well -
settled principle of law that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment. From our
experience, we can say that it appears
that the trial courts and the High Courts
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
2025:KER:767
attempt to play safe in matters of grant of
bail. The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times,
followed in breach. On account of non -
grant of bail even in straight forward open
and shut cases, this Court is flooded with
huge number of bail petitions thereby
adding to the huge pendency. It is high
time that the trial courts and the High
Courts should recognize the principle that
"bail is rule and jail is exception"."
11. Considering the dictum laid down in the
above decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications
are allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioners shall be released on bail
on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
two solvent sureties each for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
2025:KER:767
2. 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.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India
without permission of the
jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of
which they are accused, or
BA Nos. 11305, 11299, 11306 AND 11301 of 2024
2025:KER:767
suspected, of the commission of
which they are suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioners, the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the
bail in accordance with law, even
though the bail is granted by this
Court. The prosecution and the
victim are at liberty to approach the
jurisdictional court to cancel the
bail, if there is any violation of the
above condition.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
