Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1313 (HP)

MANOJ BRAGTA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-12-18

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No.202 of 2009 registered on 21.10.2009 at Police Station, Rampur under Sections 379, 34 IPC and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case is that Gurcharan Singh, Range Officer, Nankhari submitted written complaint dated 20.10.2009 at Police Post, Nankhari for registration of the case. It was stated that forest worker Devinder Singh after patrolling Nankhari Beat returned at about 7.00 p.m. on 20.10.2009 in the Forest Range Office, Nankhari. He brought one Gorkha with him. He said that during the day he was patrolling D.P.F. C-112 Punn Forest. He found seven green Deodar trees were cut above Nankhari – Tutupani road. There was no person on the spot. He climbed further on the hill and heard some persons talking there, six persons were sitting there. The forest worker enquired from those persons about the illicit cutting of seven deodar trees. They had shown their ignorance but from their talk, the forest worker suspected the involvement of said persons in the illicit cutting of the trees. He caught one Gorkha but the remaining five fled away taking the cover of darkness. The forest worker gave information about the illicit cutting of seven green deodar trees. The complainant himself enquired from Gorkha Ann Bahadur who admitted his involvement in the illicit cutting of deodar trees. He also disclosed that Manoj and Ajay for cutting the trees had brought two gorkhas and two other persons in a vehicle alongwith cutting implements. The seven green deodar trees with the intention of theft were got cut by Manoj and Ajay. 3. On this, police party reached the spot and found seven deodar trees on the spot. Thereupon case under Section 379, 34 IPC read with Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act was registered. The timber was taken into possession and was handed over to the Forest Department. It has come in investigation that six accused namely Manoj Bragta, Ajender Parkash, Ann Bahadur, Raju Nepali, Chatru Ram and Bashir Mohammed were involved in the case and they were arrested. The cutting implements were recovered from Ann Bahadur and one such implement was recovered from Ajender Parkash also. It has been stated that investigation in the case is complete. It has come in investigation that six accused namely Manoj Bragta, Ajender Parkash, Ann Bahadur, Raju Nepali, Chatru Ram and Bashir Mohammed were involved in the case and they were arrested. The cutting implements were recovered from Ann Bahadur and one such implement was recovered from Ajender Parkash also. It has been stated that investigation in the case is complete. The market value of the cut trees is Rs. 6,43,249/-. It has been alleged that the petitioner is influential person and in case he is released on bail, he may terrorise the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Advocate General has prayed for rejection of bail application of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been implicated falsely in the case. The petitioner is innocent. There is no legal evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. The petitioner was going to see his relative at Nankhari and he took the lift in the vehicle of Ajay upto Nankhari. The petitioner stayed in the house of his relative for two days from where he came back to his native village. Thereafter, he came to know that a criminal case has been lodged against him at Police Post, Nankhari under Police Station, Rampur. It has been submitted that no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The investigation in the case is complete. It has been submitted that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 27.10.2009. The investigation in the case is complete and the alleged recovery has been made from Ann Bahadur and Ajender Parkash. The challan has not yet been filed in the Court. In the normal course, the trial will take some time, no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner for indefinite period in jail. In the status report, nothing has been stated that any eye witness had spotted the petitioner on the spot at the relevant time. It is unfortunate that seven green deodar trees have been cut. In the normal course, the trial will take some time, no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner for indefinite period in jail. In the status report, nothing has been stated that any eye witness had spotted the petitioner on the spot at the relevant time. It is unfortunate that seven green deodar trees have been cut. It is the case of the prosecution that the cut trees were found on the spot. There is no allegation in the status report that any timber out of the cut trees was taken away by the petitioner. The apprehension of investigating agency that petitioner being influential person may terrorize the prosecution witnesses has not been elaborated. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 202 of 2009 registered on 21.10.2009 at Police Station, Rampur under Sections 379, 34 IPC and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rampur with the condition that the petitioner shall not hamper the investigation, tamper with the prosecution evidence or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 7. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.