Madhya Pradesh High CourtShakil Musalman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2014M.Cr.C. No. 15065 of 2014
09.10.2014
      Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned PL for respondent-State.Learned PL submits that he is under receipt of the case diary.
      Heard.On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred underSection
439of Cr.P.C for grant of bail as he is in custody since 9.08.2014 in
connection of Crime No. 22225/17, registered at Forest Range Office,
Ashta for the offence under Sections 2 (4) (A), 26, 52 of Forest Act, 2, 3
of Prevention of damage to Public Property Act, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16
of Kashtha Chiran Act, 2, 8, 40 of M.P. Van Upaj Vyapar (Vyapar
Vinimay) Act 2 (A), 17 (A) 17 (H), 39, 51 (II) of Wield Life Act.Learned applicant's counsel after taking me through the petition
alongwith the impugned rejection order of the Sessions Court argued
that the respondent - department has filed Ishtagasha after holding
the enquiry on the basis of POR and alongwith such Ishtagasha no
positive evidence or any document has been produced to show that
from the place of reserved forests or from the alleged area of the State
the seized timber/wood was cut down and removed by the applicant.
In continuation, he said that mere perusal of the papers, it appears
that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. In
continuation, he said that various alleged offences are made bailable
under the law except some of Sections of provisions ofDamage of
Public Property Actas well as Forests Act and Kashtha Chiran Act and
Van Upaj Vyapar (Vyapar Vinimay) Act. He further said that the case is
triable by the Judicial Magistrate and trial of the case shall take its
own time years together and prayed to extend the benefit of bail to
the applicant by allowing this petition.The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned PL saying that
 the applicant has committed offence by which besides other offences
the environment has also been affected for which sufficient evidence is
available in the case diary and in such premises, the applicant does not
deserve for grant of bail.Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments
advanced, after perusing the case diary including the papers of
Ishtagasha as      shown by learned PL     taking into consideration    the
nature of the      evidence collected by the Investigating Agency and
submitted before the trial court alongwith the circumstance that the
case is triable by the judicial Magistrate Ist Class and the trial will take
its own      time that may be months together or years together, so
without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the petition is
allowed.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rs. Fifty thousand) along with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court the applicant, Shakil Mushalman shall be
released on bail with direction to appear on each and every date of the
trial.His single non-appearance before the trial court     shall lead to
automatic dismissal of this bail order.Certified copy as per rules.(U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                 Judge
bks