Pre-arrest bail granted for inadvertent tree cutting on government land after penalty payment under conservancy act.

ORDER

This application is filed underSection 482of theBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for short, BNSS ), seeking pre- arrest bail.

2. The applicants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.101/2026 of Santhapara Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 329 (2) and 303(3) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused persons, without obtaining any authorization to cut or remove trees from government land and with the intention of trespassing into government property and committing theft, on 11.10.2025, during daytime, near Muthamma Colony in the Anayirankal area of Chinnakanal Village, criminally trespassed into government revenue puramboke land comprised in Survey No. 311/19. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4, using two machine saws and a rope, cut and removed about 30 eucalyptus trees and other forest trees valued at approximately Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only), which were standing on the said property, and thereafter loaded the same into a jeep bearing Registration No. KL-01-T-2021, committed theft and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Praveen S., the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.K.A.Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and if they are released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The applicant No.2 is the owner of the property adjacent to the puramboke from where the trees were allegedly cut and removed. The applicant No.1 is the contractor who undertook to cut and remove the trees. According to the applicant No.2, he cut and removed the eucalyptus trees from his property after obtaining necessary permission. It is his case that since there is no physical demarcating boundary to demarcate his property with that of the puramboke, inadvertently he cut few trees situated therein also. The definite case of the applicants is that it was not at all intentional. The record would show that the revenue authorities have already initiated proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 , assessed the loss and imposed penalty, which had been paid by the applicant No.2. Annexure-A3 is the receipt showing the payment of the penalty. In this circumstances, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. The investigation is almost over. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicants. In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-