SAIFUDHEEN Vs. DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the same in these three petitions brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He is the accused in three crimes of the Thiruvizhamkunnu Forest Station, registered as O.R. Nos. 6 of 2016, 1 of 2017 and 5 of 2016. He was granted bail by this Court on certain conditions in the three crimes. One of the conditions is that he shall report before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. on every Thursday for a period of three months from 21.04.2017, or till the final report is submitted, whichever is earlier. Later, alleging failure on the part of the petitioner to report as directed by this Court, the Deputy Forest Range Officer, Thiruvizhamkunnu, made applications before the court below requesting cancellation of bail. The three applications in the three crimes were respectively registered as C.M.P. No. 3301 of 2017, 3302 of 2017 and 3303 of 2017. The Deputy Forest Range Officer alleged failure to report on 22.06.2017 and 29.06.2017. On the said request, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner to appear, and show cause against cancellation of bail on 25.07.2017. On that day, he was represented by his counsel, and he sought some time. The learned Magistrate granted time till 07.08.2017 for appearance. On the said date, it was reported to court that the accused was in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 526 of 2017 of the Kongad Police Station. As the petitioner failed to appear in court, the learned Magistrate issued a production warrant, to cause production of the accused on 25.08.2017. But the jail Superintendent of the Sub Jail, Palakkad, returned the production warrant with report that the petitioner was, by the time, released on bail in the said crime. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail, and issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The petitioner seeks orders setting aside the order of the court below cancelling his bail without hearing him.

(2.) A report was called for from the learned Magistrate by this Court. The learned Magistrate has submitted report dated 02.07.2018 explaining the steps taken on the three applications filed by the Deputy Forest Range Officer to cancel the bail. The report shows that some representation was made on behalf of the petitioner in court on 07.08.2017 regarding the failure on the part of the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 22.06.2017 and 29.06.2017, and a statement of objection was also filed by him in court. Ext.P4 is said to be the copy of the said objection. In the said objection, he has stated that due to some disease, he could not appear before the investigating officer on two dates. The petitioner's grievance is that his objection was not considered by the learned Magistrate, and without considering the objection or without hearing him, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail.

(3.) On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, including the report submitted by the learned Magistrate, I find that decision on the request made by the Deputy Forest Range Officer to cancel the bail will have to be taken afresh by the learned Magistrate on merits after hearing the petitioner in detail, and also after examining the statement of objection filed by him. When an application is filed in court to cancel the bail, the court will have to hear the accused before taking decision to cancel the bail. Decision cannot be arbitrarily taken, simply by accepting the report of the police or the prosecuting agency. The report submitted by the learned Magistrate does not contain anything regarding the Ext.P4 objection. Anyway, if the petitioner has filed such an objection it will definitely have to be considered by the court. I feel it necessary to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present his grievances before the court below, and show cause why the bail granted to him should not be cancelled. In the result, the three petitions are allowed. The impugned order passed by the court below cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner in O.R. Nos. 6 of 2016, 1 of 2017 and 5 of 2016 of the Thiruvizhamkunnu Forest Station, will stand set aside, and the bail granted to him will stand revived for a period of three months. Within a period of three months from this date, decision afresh shall be taken by the court below on merits on the request made by the Deputy Forest Range Officer, after hearing both sides. The warrant of arrest issued against him from the court will stand recalled in the above circumstances. Communicate this order to the court below immediately.ORDER It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor for Forest Offences that the petitioner is involved in so many crimes under the Kerala Forest Act. The question here is whether the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. The matter requires hearing in detail. It is made clear that the interim order passed by this Court in this proceeding will not, in any manner, or in any circumstance, stand in the way of arrest of the petitioner in other crimes where he is involved as accused. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for necessary action. Post after vacation.