Roop Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?No For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 5 of 2011 dated 12.3.2011 registered at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kullu, under Section 379 IPC, Sections 32, 33, 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983.

#2. It has been stated that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the above case. The petitioner has no role in the commission of offence. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner is ______________________ Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner had been assisting the police during investigation. The FIR is of March, 2011. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

#3. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of rukka dated 12.3.2011 sent by Inspector Prem Singh. The recoveries have been made. It has been found that the Forest Guard after 1.3.2010 had not cut any damage report. The Range Officer, Nagar on 26.5.2011 had reported the illicit felling of 12 deodar trees. The volume of recovered timber was given

11.432 cub. metre. The A.C.F. in his detailed inspection report dated

19.4.2011 has reported that in DPF 1/24 CII Nathan Beat 12 deodar trees were illicitly cut. He has reported that the Forest Guard, Ravinder Kumar, Nathan Beat and Block Officer, Naggar Roop Lal did not give report of the illicit felling nor prepared any damage report. The petitioner has not discharged his duty. The petitioner joined the investigation. He was arrested and released on bail. It has been stated that investigation in the case is complete. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

#4. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR was registered on 12.3.2011 and now after about 1‰ years, the petitioner is being implicated in the case. The petitioner is innocent. The allegation against the petitioner is that he did not report illicit felling of 12 deodar trees in time. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the involvement of the 3 petitioner is obvious. He did not report illicit felling to the higher authorities.

#5. In the status report, there is no allegation that petitioner himself cut the trees or helped in cutting the trees. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he did not report the illicit felling of trees to higher authorities. There is no damage report of the period when the trees were cut. The petitioner has joined the investigation which is complete. In the status report, it has not been stated that any recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner is in service and, therefore, there is no likelihood that he will not be available for trial. There is no allegation of non-cooperation in the investigation. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

#6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner in the event of arrest is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 5 of 2011 dated 12.3.2011 registered at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kullu, under Section 379 IPC, Sections 32, 33, 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ‘50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The petitioner shall maintain absolute lawful and peaceful conduct during the pendency of the case. 4

#7. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. September 21, 2012. (GR) ( Kuldip Singh), Judge.