Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 791 (KER)

Yusaf S/o Muhammed Ali v. State Of Kerala

2025-04-02

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2025
ORDER These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. These bail applications are connected because all these cases are registered by Sholayur Forest Station Office. Petitioners are accused in O.R.No.11/2024, 1/2025, 7/2024, 11/2024, 1/2025 and 7/2024 of Sholyur Forest Station. Above cases are registered inter alia under Section 27(1) (e)(iv)(iii) Section 47C, 47F, 47G, 47H of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. 3. Prosecution case is that, the accused trespassed into the VFC Item No.96, Anaikatti, Vattalaki, Marapalam Tanippaya sandal generation area and cut and removed the sandal woods. Petitioners are in custody from 22.02.2025 onwards. Their arrest was recorded in the other cases also. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, petitioners are in custody from 22.02.2025 onwards. It was further contended that petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon them. It was further submitted that, some of the petitioners are from the State of Tamil Nadu, and that the petitioners are ready to furnish local sureties from the State of Kerala. The same is recorded. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the application and submitted that petitioners committed very serious offence and that they may not be released on bail, and if they released on bail, they will commit similar offences. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the area from where the sandal wood is cut and removed is the Sandal Wood Regeneration Zone. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Though the allegations raised against the petitioners are serious in nature, petitioners have been in custody since 22.02.2025 and indefinite incarceration of the petitioners are not necessary, I think that petitioners can be released on bail. But I make it clear that if the petitioners commit similar offences in future, the investigating officer can file appropriate applications before the jurisdictional court. If any such application is filed, the Jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail even though this order is passed by this Court. 7. 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. If any such application is filed, the Jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail even though this order is passed by this Court. 7. 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 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. 8. 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 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) 9. 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. 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 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".” 10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. The petitioners shall offer local sureties and the same is recorded. 2. 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 inare violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her 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 suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 5. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 6. 5. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to 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 conditions.