JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. The bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] has come up before this Court seeking pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’] originating from the FIR No.0027, dated 25.02.2023, registered under Section 447, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] with Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur [H.P.]. 2. The case as set up by Mr. Mohit Thakur, learned counsel is that the false complaint was made by one Sh. Dharam Chand allegedly felling of trees from the Government land and the status of the said land is in dispute qua its ownership and possession also. It is also averred that the petitioner is a pensioner, suffering from heart ailment and is 76 years of age. It is also averred that the petitioner had never trespassed into the aforesaid land. The petitioner has given the undertaking in the bail application that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and shall not tamper with the witnesses or the evidence in any manner. It is also averred that FIR No.0027, dated 25.02.2023, was registered about a year back and since then the petitioner has never been called or associated by the police authorities, for investigation into the said offences. 3. Upon issuance of notice on 13.02.2024 and the grant of interim bail, this Court directed the respondent to file the status report. Thereafter the matter was listed on 28.02.2024 when, the State Authorities have filed the status report dated 28.02.2024 on the instructions of SHO Bhoranj, District Hamirpur [H.P.] Thereafter the matter was again listed on 07.03.2024 when, another status report dated 07.03.2024 on the instructions of SHO Bhoranj, District Hamirpur [H.P.] was taken on record. The first status report dated 28.02.2024 and the second status report dated 07.03.2024 are pari materia containing similar averments. 4. A perusal of the status reports dated 28.02.2024 and 07.03.2024 reveal that though the FIR No.0027, dated 25.02.2023 was registered against the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] alleging illicit felling of trees from government land in Village Lathwan i.e. from Khasra No.162. However, the status report reveals the alleged felling was undertaken in Khasra Nos.784, 913, 914, 916 and 943, which though are Shamilat Land but the same is termed as “Gair Marusi” in possession of one Vijay Puri Chela of Ameed Puri. However, the status report reveals the alleged felling was undertaken in Khasra Nos.784, 913, 914, 916 and 943, which though are Shamilat Land but the same is termed as “Gair Marusi” in possession of one Vijay Puri Chela of Ameed Puri. The status report further reveals that as per the report of Range Forest Officer, seventy trees have been felled from the aforesaid land comprising in Khasra Nos.784, 913, 914, 916 and 943, as referred to above. It has also come in the status report that the trees have been felled at the instance of Mahatama-Swami [Raviwan], who is the caretaker of the old Jhangi Mahadev Temple at Lathwan in District Hamirpur [H.P.]. The status report further reveals that the aforesaid Mahatma, namely Baba Raviwan and one Besari Lal were arrested on 09.02.2024 and thereafter both these persons were enlarged on bail by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on 12.02.2024. The status report further reveals that the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] is a retired Government employee and after retirement he has resorted to the trade of Timber from the year 2010 and thereafter for some time the aforesaid timber business was stopped and again restored by the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] from the year 2018 till day. It is further averred in the status report that the timber allegedly cut and sold, is yet to be recovered. It is further stated in the status report that the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] is participating in the investigation. The status report further reveals that the driver of the truck No.HP 24A-5370 owned by one Shri Satpal, in whose vehicle timber was taken to Yamuna Nagar, is absconding till day. In these circumstances, a prayer has been made for disallowing the instant, bail application of the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh], as referred to above. 5. Heard Mr. Mohit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned State Counsel and also gone through the records. 6. In these circumstances, a prayer has been made for disallowing the instant, bail application of the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh], as referred to above. 5. Heard Mr. Mohit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned State Counsel and also gone through the records. 6. Before proceeding further in the matter, it is relevant to take note of the statutory provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the offences of Section 378, 379, 441 and 447 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, which are relevant in the instant case, read as under:- “Section 438 Cr.P.C.: Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: (1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter-alia, the following factors, namely- (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail; Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this Sub-Section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application. (1A) Where the Court grants an interim order under Sub-Section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court. (1B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under subsection (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person 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) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under Sub-Section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under Sub-Section (1). (4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code. Section 378 Indian Penal Code: 378. Theft.-Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Section 378 Indian Penal Code: 378. Theft.-Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Explanation 1.-A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth. Explanation 2.-A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3.-A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it. Explanation 4.-A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal. Explanation 5.-The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied. Section 379 Indian Penal Code: 379. Punishment for theft.-Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 441 Indian Penal Code: 441. Criminal trespass.- Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”. Section 447 of Indian Penal Code: 447. Punishment for criminal trespass.- Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code : 34. Section 447 of Indian Penal Code: 447. Punishment for criminal trespass.- Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code : 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” 7. In the background of the statutory provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., the claim of a suspect-accused is to be examined within the parameters prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regulating grant of bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , mandating that the bail {anticipatory or regular} is to be granted where the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exists which lead to believe or point out towards accusation ; and these parameters for regular bail have been reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01. 7(i). While dealing with the case for grant of regular bail, under Section 439 Cr PC, the three judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the broad parameters, has held in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559 , in Para 25 that the nature of the crime has a huge relevancy, while considering claim for bail. 7(ii). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 974, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of the broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for regular bail or anticipatory bail as under: 11. Mr. 7(ii). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 974, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of the broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for regular bail or anticipatory bail as under: 11. Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons touching the merits or de-merits of the prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage. The settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion, is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking into consideration the well-known parameters including: (i) The nature of the accusation weighing in the gravity and severity of the offence; (ii) The severity of punishment; (iii) The position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not; (iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or try to approach the victims/witnesses; (v) Likelihood of accused absconding from proceedings; (vi) Possibility of accused tampering with evidence; (vii) Obstructing or attempting to obstruct the due course of justice; (viii) Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail; (ix) The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge including frivolity of the charge; (x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence. 12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the Cr.PC, as the case may be. 7(iii). It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the Cr.PC, as the case may be. 7(iii). In CBI versus Santosh Karnani, (2023) 6 SCALE 250, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the illustrative time tested broad parameters which are required to be taken into account while considering the prayer for bail ; which have recently been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085. 8. In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power under Section 438 is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. It is trite law that while considering the prayer for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], the formation of prima facie opinion is to gathered as to whether reasonable grounds exist pointing towards accusation or whether the accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object of either injuring or humiliating or where a person has falsely been roped in the crime needs to be tested in the background of the self-imposed restrains or the broad parameters mandated by law, as referred to herein above. 9. This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No 3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, though a Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused during trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the large interests of the public/state. In this background, while testing the claim for bail, the Court is required to form a prima-facie opinion in the context of the broad-parameters referred to above, without delving into the evidence on merits, as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution. 10. On considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the statutory provisions as applicable in the instant case and also in view of the mandate of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the interim/pre-arrest bail granted by this Court on 13.02.2024, deserves to be made absolute for the following reasons:- 10(i). The Prima facie the accusation under Sections 378 and 379 of IPC is not made out against the bail petitioner-accused [Balwant Singh]. 10(ii). The accusation under Sections 378 & 379 of IPC, in considered view of this Court, is not prima facie made out and no reasonable grounds exists pointing out towards the accusation against the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh], for the reason, that the FIR or the Status Report does not point out, anything that the bail petitioner had the intention to dishonestly take the alleged property out of the possession of the another person without his consent. In this case, once, the land in question, is Shamilat Deh but is termed as “Gair Marusi” in the possession of Vijay Puri and there is nothing on record to show that the bail petitioner had the intention and had acted dishonestly by removing any property belonging to the Temple or Lands possessed by Vijay Puri, as aforesaid; then, the prima facie accusation under Section 378/379 IPC does not point out towards the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh]. 10(iii). 10(iii). So far as the accusation under Sections 441 and 447 is concerned , this Court is of the view that there is no prima facie material or reasonable grounds, at this stage, to point out the accusation that the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] had ever entered in the property in Khasra Nos.784, 913, 914, 916 and 943, which is Shamilat Tikka termed as “Gair Marusi” in possession of Vijay Puri Chela at Lathwan, nor anything exists to show that the bail petitioner had the intention to commit an offence or to incriminate or insult or annoy any person, who is in possession of the said property. In these circumstances, neither any prima facie case nor reasonable grounds exist pointing out towards accusation under Sections 441, 447 IPC, against the bail petitioner, namely Balwant Singh, referred to above. 10(iv) Though the entire case of the prosecution story revolves upon the alleged felling of trees but in considered view of this Court, the accusation under the Indian Forests Act has not been invoked in the instant case. So far the accusation under Section 441 and 447 IPC are concerned, the F.I.R. was lodged at the best of one Shri Dharam Chand is of no avail and the same cannot be made basis for accusation when the aforesaid complainant-Dharam Chand is neither the owner of the alleged property nor such property has been taken up dishonestly from his possession and therefore, the invocation of Sections 378 and 379 and even criminal jurisprudence under Sections 441 and 447 IPC is not prima facie made out against the bail petitioner. Moreover, even Gair Marusi occupancy of Mr. Vijay Puri Chela (the occupant/owner as per records) has also not come up with accusation against the bail petitioner and therefore, this Court is of the prima facie view that neither any prima facie or reasonable grounds exists against the bail petitioner and therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to enlargement of bail by making interim order passed by this Court on 13.02.2024 as absolute. 10(v). The status report does not spell out any other adversarial circumstances against the bail petitioner, except the accusation in the present FIR. The status report also does not spell out any eventuality, that in case of grant of bail, the justice would be thwarted by the bail petitioner. 10(vi). 10(v). The status report does not spell out any other adversarial circumstances against the bail petitioner, except the accusation in the present FIR. The status report also does not spell out any eventuality, that in case of grant of bail, the justice would be thwarted by the bail petitioner. 10(vi). There is no likelihood of the petitioner fleeing away being a former disciplined soldier in the Armed Forces. 10(vii). Moreover, the pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law. The trial of the accused will take sufficient long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody, when, in prima facie opinion of this Court, no prima facie case or reasonable grounds exist against the bail petitioner. 10(viii). So far as the apprehensions, as expressed, in the status report, are concerned, those are not sufficient to decline the relief to the petitioner, for which, he is, otherwise, entitled to. For those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed. 10(ix). Even the status Report does not point out anything adverse regarding past conduct blemished criminal history/ records of the bail petitioner. 10(x) The stand in the status report that the recoveries are yet to be made and is without merit when, nothing has come on record that the bail petitioner had taken away/removed any property dishonestly, without the consent of one Vijay Puri or Raviwan, the true occupants/owners of the aforesaid land to whom the aforesaid land belonged or was allotted. 10(xi). The status in status report that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Sunil Kumar is absconding; cannot be the basis for denying the benefit of bail to the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] herein. 10(xii) The plea of the State Authorities that the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] has joined investigation but he is not spelling out the facts, cannot be the basis for denying the bail when, as per the law, an accused-suspect be forced to speak out the self-incriminating facts against him, so as not to prejudice him in the trial or the proceedings thereafter. 10(xiii) The claim of the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] for enlargement on bail cannot be denied in view of the peculiar facts that the bail petitioner is 76 years of age, who is suffering from hear-ailment. 10(xiii) The claim of the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] for enlargement on bail cannot be denied in view of the peculiar facts that the bail petitioner is 76 years of age, who is suffering from hear-ailment. Even, prima facie accusation in the FIR points out towards alleged illicit felling on Government land, which is not supported by the status report as on day. The claim of the bail petitioner derives strength for the reason that the alleged offence under Sections 379 & 447, are trivial in nature and since the bail petitioner has already joined the investigation in compliance to the orders dated 13.02.2024 and the orders dated 28.02.2024, passed by this Court, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be achieved, by denying the bail, to the petitioner in the instant case. 11. In view of the above discussion, the bail petition is allowed and the orders dated 13.02.2024 passed by this Court, granting pre-arrest to the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] is made absolute; subject to the observations of conditions contained in the order dated 13.02.2024, coupled with the fact that the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] shall participate in the investigation and the trial, without fail. 12. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of order from Website of the High Court. 13. Any observations made herein-above, shall not be construed in any manner as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and these observations are made only, for the disposal of the instant bail application. As aforesaid, the instant petition and all applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.