When a person’s appearance is secured bail can be issued

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur |19 May 2020

Jeet Ram vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh

  The petitioners are seeking regular bail in under Section 32 & 33 of Indian Forest Act and Sections 379, 147, 149, 332, 435, 353, 201 & 506 of Indian Penal Code.

Facts:

While patrolling at Mashna Beat, the forest officials came across one stump of Rai tree (II-B) as well as 35 sleepers of different dimensions. This forest wealth, valuing Rs.78, 372/-, was seized and seizure hammer was put over the same. The damage report was prepared against unidentified person. On account of lock-down in force due to COVID-19 pandemic, labour was not available; therefore, the forest officials themselves carried the seized sleepers near Sapoor Nallah. 

For protecting this forest wealth, the forest officials stayed at a distance of around 20/30 meters from the said Nallah. A loud explosive sound was heard at the place where the sleepers were kept. On hearing the sound, the forest officials reached the spot and saw the sleepers having caught fire. Petitioners Budh Ram, Jeet Ram, Ram Lal and their other family members were running away from the spot and were also pelting stones on the forest officials, forcing them (officials) to return. 

The Investigation was carried out and efforts were made to arrest the petitioners Budh Ram, Jeet Ram, Ram Lal and their other family members. one Govind Singh, son-in-law of petitioner Jeet Ram, was brought for investigation to Police Station, Kullu, who allegedly stated that one ‘Rai’ tree standing over the forest land was felled by Budh Ram, Jeet Ram, Ram Lal and Radha Devi. It was converted into sleepers by them. 

He allegedly admitted in helping the petitioners in conversion of the tree into sleepers and further in carriage and storing the same. He also allegedly disclosed that the entire illegal exercise was carried out by the bail petitioners with the help of their various other relatives. He, however, expressed his ignorance about the names and addresses of the relatives of the petitioners. 

The bail petition preferred by the petitioners was primarily on the ground that the petitioners had not only removed the forest wealth but had also damaged the same by setting it on fire in order to destroy the evidence and also on the ground that the bail petitioners did not cooperate with the Investigation Agency.

Petitioners Submission:

• It was submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated with the alleged offence. The petitioners belong to poor strata of Scheduled Caste community. All the petitioners belong to one family. Their house is at a distance of around 20 kilometres from the Police Station. Petitioner Budh Ram is aged more than 80 years. He is frail and cannot walk. There is no previous criminal history of the bail petitioners.
• The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed upon them by this Court in the event of grant of bail and that they will not influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.

Respondents Submission:

• Respondent opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the bail petitioners not only damaged the forest wealth but also tried to destroy the evidence. The bail petitioners also obstructed the government servants from discharging their duties. He has also submitted that the bail petitioners have not been cooperating with the investigation inasmuch as the wood saw (Farnai) or the instrument with which the tree was cut and sleepers were made has not yet been recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners have also not disclosed as to how they set the sleepers ablaze.

Court’s Decision:

  Court granted interim protection to the bail petitioners, is confirmed, subject to the following conditions:-

• Petitioners are directed to join and cooperate the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law;
• Petitioners shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever;
• Petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court;
• Petitioners shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer;
• In case the petitioners are put to trial, then they shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law;
• Petitioners shall inform the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned about their place of residence during bail and trail.
• It is made clear that in case the petitioners are arraigned as accused in future, in any FIR under the law, then their bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard.