B.M. Abdul Rahman vs State Of Kerala

Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicant is the second accused in OR No.6/2020 of Kasaragod Forest Range Office for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii)&(iv), 27(1)(d), 52, 47C, 47D, 47F, 47G, 47H and 69 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the District Collector and his gunman on 06.10.2020 near the Whirlpool company godown at Thazhe Nayanmarmoola, noticed certain materials being loaded in two vehicles, in consequence of which he intercepted and the Forest Officials thereafter registered the present crime. A1 was arrested from the spot. Subsequent investigation reveal the involvement of the applicant and he too was arrayed as an accused. He approached this Court for anticipatory bail, which was declined and thereafter he surrendered on 03.02.2021 and was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true and that not even his custodial interrogation has been sought for by the investigating officer so far and therefore further detention of the applicant may not be necessary. It is also stated that he has no criminal antecedents. He is a person ailing with several illnesses and he is 65 years old. Hence, he may not be detained and released on bail.

Heard the learned senior counsel Sri. M.Ramesh Chander appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor Smt. V. Sreeja.

It was earlier submitted at the time of anticipatory bail as also at the time of hearing the application for bail before the jurisdictional court that the applicant is a notorious criminal having 25 criminal cases registered against him and that he is also a person having connections with sandalwood factory in Madhya Pradesh. However, the prosecution has not been able to point out a single other case in which the applicant is implicated as an accused. Twenty five cases are pertaining to sandalwood smuggling, but in none of those cases, the applicant has yet been arrayed as an accused. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant is a person having criminal antecedents. The mere rumours and assumptions will not not be sufficient to detain the applicant. Moreover, in view of the fact that his custodial interrogation has not been sought for by the investigating officer so far, I find that his custody may not be necessary. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application for the reason that there are certain other accused persons yet to be arrested and certain vehicles are to be seized. But the report which has been filed by the investigating officer before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court indicates that all the vehicles connected with this crime has already been seized and taken into custody and A3 also has been arrested and more over A1 has also been released on bail. Under the circumstances, I find no reason for detaining the applicant any longer. Considering the gravity of the offence, stringent conditions can be imposed.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on the following conditions;

(1) He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

(2) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

(3) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.