Muhammad Azkar And Anr vs State Of Kerala

Applications for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The applicants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid forest crimes. OR No.6/2020 of Mupliyam Forest Station, Thrissur was the first in point of

time to be registered. The offences in the all the three crimes are under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii), (iv), 47(G) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.10.2020, the applicants along with the other accused unlawfully trespassed into the Kodassery notifying

reserve forest and cut and removed 44 sandalwood trees and tried to transport the 54 pieces of sandalwood in a Tata Tempo Lorry bearing

Reg.No.KL-20-3886 and four pieces of sandalwood were attempted to transport in a Hyundai Eon car bearing Reg.No.KL-52-G-1514. The officials

intercepted the vehicle and the contraband was seized. The first accused was arrested from the scene of occurrence while the second accused who

along with the fourth accused were drivers was subsequently arrested on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. The applicants were again

incorporated in two other crimes in OR No.9/2020 on 25.10.2020, and OR No.8/2020 was registered on 24.10.2020 for having cut and removed

sandalwood trees from different portions of the forest. Accordingly, they are being prosecuted in those crimes also. The formal arrest of the

applicants in those two OR were recorded on 05.11.2020.

The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true and going by the confession statement, it is one Achayan who is the

prime offender for whom the applicants who are allegedly employed to cut and remove the sandalwood trees. Therefore, they may be released on

bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutors appearing for the State point out that the first accused is the kingpin who is the organizer of the crime and it is

admitted that A2 is only a driver who was engaged for the purpose of removing the trees. It is however admitted that A1 does not have any criminal

antecedents. In case the applicants are granted bail, there is every possibility of their committing offences of similar nature and it is also difficult to

apprehend the other accused who may be involved in the alleged offence.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the fourth accused who is also a driver was granted bail from the jurisdictional court.

Therefore, prays that the applicants who are the employees of the main offender may be released on bail.

After having heard the submissions made on both sides, I am of the opinion that the allegation against A1 is graver because he is a person who

allegedly organized the cutting of trees and was engaged in removing those trees. Accused No.2 was only employed as a driver and was working

under the instructions of the first accused. The releasing of A1 at this stage would definitely hamper the investigation because the other persons who

are behind the act of cutting and removing the trees and also selling it would have to be apprehended and therefore the applications are allowed in

part, and the 2nd applicant/2nd accused in all these three bail applications is released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on the following conditions;

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.

He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

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.

The applications of the 1st accused cannot be considered because the investigation is still at the nascent stage and the investigating officer has to be

given some more time to unravel the involvement of the other persons involved in the crime. Hence, the applications pertaining to the 1st accused are

rejected.