IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1800 of 2025 Decided on: 05.08.2025 Chet Ram …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant : Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, assisted by HC Khem Singh No. 136, I.O. Police Station BSL Colony Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant-Chet Ram, apprehending his arrest in case FIR No. 71/2025 dated 11.06.2025, registered under Section 303 (2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) and Sections 41 & 42 of Indian 2 Forest Act, with Police Station BSL Colony Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought, to direct the Investigating Officer/ Police of Police Station BSL Colony Sundernagar to release him on bail, in the above noted FIR. 3. The relief has been sought on the ground that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case, as he has not committed any offence, for which, he has been named as an accused. 3.1 It is the further case of the applicant that he is owner of saw mill, registered vide License No. 7/1996, established over Khasra No. 634 of Muhal Palhota and a Timber Depot for sale of furniture items vide License No. 8/2004-05, established over Khasra No. 606 of Muhal Palhota. 3.2 According to the applicant, the story of the police, as stated in the FIR, is imaginary and has no 3 connection, whatsoever, with the applicant. The applicant has further pleaded that he is permanent resident of District Mandi, H.P. and having deep roots in the society. 3.3 The applicant has given certain undertakings to abide by the conditions, to be imposed by this Court, in case directions are issued to the Investigating Officer/Police to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above titled case. 3.4 According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 25.07.2025. 3.5 On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 4. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report on 29.07.2025, disclosing therein, that complainant Ram Lal, DFO, Forest Division Jaidevi, moved a complaint, against the applicant, disclosing therein that on 03.06.2025, he along with other officers and officials of 4 Forest Division Jaidevi, were on patrolling duty. They had intercepted a vehicle bearing No. HP30A-2029, at a place Nehra. On checking, 29 scants of Devdar were found to be transported illegally. In this regard, FIR No. 63/2025 dated 03.06.2025 was registered with Police Station BSL Colony Sundernagar and during the investigation, the driver of the said vehicle, namely Tara Chand, son of Sh. Roop Lal, disclosed that the said wood was unauthorizedly being transported to the Wood Based Industry of applicant Chet Ram at Palohta, upon which, on 04.06.2025 and 05.06.2025, the premises of Wood Based Industry of applicant Chet Ram was visited by the Forest Officers and officials. 4.1 On 04.06.2025 and on 05.06.2025, the stock was checked and the requisite documents were inspected. However, it was found that the owner of said Wood Based Industry has not got verified the bill book, sale purchase register from any authorized officer. 4.2 On 05.06.2025, in the presence of Pradhan and Ward Member of Gram Panchayat Palohta, applicant was 5 directed to open the shutter of the store for inspection, upon which, he has disclosed that the keys of the same are with the labourer, who are raising the construction there. As such, he was directed to bring keys on 06.06.2025. Thereafter, the team of the Forest Officials locked the said premises and sealed the same. 4.3 On 06.06.2025, the Forest Department measured the scants stated to have been brought from his land in Tehsil Anni, District Kullu. On measurement, those were found to be 47.683 cubic meter, 30.917 cubic meter and 1.382 cubic meter. Thereafter, the under construction house of applicant was opened and the wood found there, was measured. When the measurement was being done, then the complainant received information that the owner of the Wood Based Industry has removed the wood, which was seized from his under construction house, on the intervening night of 06.06.2025, and kept the same in the cowshed and store of one Diwan Chand son of Sh. Chint Ram. 4.4 Thereafter, the said cowshed and store were 6 searched, from where, 202 planks and 35 scants, which were having no hammer mark, were found. Said Diwan Chand was not present, however, his wife was present, who, on inquiry, disclosed that the said wood was kept by the owner of Wood Based Industry. On inquiry, the applicant could not give any satisfactory answer. Said wood was taken into possession and handed over to Sh. Ramesh Kumar son of Sh. Chint Ram. Thereafter, the applicant has produced the documents with regard to the raw material i.e. wood found in the premises. However, irregularities were found. As such, it has been concluded by the I.O. that the applicant had illegally kept the raw material i.e. wood, in his under construction house, as referred to, in the status report. 4.5 As such, a request has been made to take action against the application under Sections 41, 42, 52, 64 and 69 of Indian Forest Act, Sections 9 & 11 of Himachal Pradesh Forest (Sale of Timber) Rules, 1969, Sections 15(iv), (19) of Himachal Pradesh River Rules, 1971 and Section 303 and 61 of BNS, upon which, FIR in question has been 7 registered. 4.6 The investigation was thereafter conducted by HC Khem Singh. He has measured the wood on 11.06.2025, however, due to non supply of power in the area, that activity could not be completed. 4.7 On 12.06.2025, the then DFO Forest Range Jaidevi, Sh. Ram Lal recovered 202 planks of devdar and 35 scants of devdar from the cowshed and store of Diwan Chand, by reducing the details in writing, on the papers and the same was submitted to the police. Police had also drawn the sample. 4.8 During investigation, from the under construction house of Chet Ram, spot was visited and from the first floor, the raw material i.e. wood, in the different shape was found and details of the same was reduced into writing. 4.9 The applicant was associated in the investigation on 13.06.2025. Since in the investigation, aplicant Chet Ram has named Suresh Thakur as the person, from whom, he has purchased the timber, as such, he was contacted 8 and associated in the investigation, who allegedly disclosed that on 02.06.2025, said Suresh Thakur telephonically inquired from applicant Chet Ram about his requirement for devdar wood. 4.10 Said Suresh Thakur, disclosed that applicant Chet Ram telephonically inquired from him as to whether he needs devdar slippers, upon which, the positive response was given by Suresh Thakur. Thereafter, applicant Chet Ram told him that he is having 28-29 slippers. On 03.06.2025, applicant Chet Ram provided the scants to him at saw mill. Thereafter, he developed a suspicion that checking might be conducted by someone. As such, he alighted down from the vehicle at Nehra and driver drove the vehicle and said timber was nabbed by the authorities. 4.11 Thereafter, he has apprised applicant Chet Ram, who has cautioned him not to disclose his name to the authorities. Thereafter, on 15.06.2025, CDRs of applicant Chet Ram and Suresh Thakur were obtained and they were found to be in touch with each other. 4.12 After perusing the status report, the interim 9 relief was granted to the applicant vide order dated 29.07.2025, and the matter has been adjourned for today. 4.13 Today, the police has filed the fresh status report, disclosing therein, that on 09.07.2025, applicant Chet Ram joined the investigation and the questionnaire was given to him. 4.14 As per the status report, he has reiterated the earlier stand taken by disclosing that he has purchased the timber from one Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Narsingh Dutt, for a sum of Rs. 37,000/-, which as per the direction of Suresh Kumar were paid to Ravinder Kumar son of Sh. Jhabe Ram and Rs. 25,000/- were paid to Suresh Kumar in cash. However, applicant Chet Ram could not produce the documentary proof with regard to the other timber. 4.15 On the basis of the following facts, prayer for dismissal of the bail has been sought:- (i) That the applicant on 13.06.2025, disclosed the fact that he had purchased the timber from Suresh Kumar, son of Sh. Narsingh Dutt in the month of November, 2024, as well as, in the month of January, 2025. However, later on, when the questionnaire was put on 03.07.2025 & 10.07.2025, he has admitted the purchase 10 of 30 scants of devdar only. (ii) He has not disclosed that from where, he had brought the said timber. (iii) During investigation, it has been found that applicant Chet Ram on 19.08.2024, has transferred an amount of Rs. 24,000/-, through cheque, in the name of Ravinder Kumar and Rs. 25,000/- were given in cash to Suresh Kumar. He feigned ignorance about Ravinder Kumar, however, during investigation, it has been found that the applicant Chet Ram remained in contact with Ravinder Kumar from 01st July, 2024 to 31st December, 2024 and thereby concealed the facts. (iv) During investigation, it was found that applicant Chet Ram had removed 202 planks and 35 slippers of devdar from his under construction house and kept the same in the house of some other person. (v) The applicant is not disclosing about the timber of other species, whereas timber worth Rs. 12,73,354/- has been taken into possession. 4.16 Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 5. Heard. 6. On the basis of the stand taken by the police in this case, at this stage, it has been proved that the entire record is with the police and the police is not able to make out a case for custodial interrogation, as the grounds, upon which, the relief has been prayed to be declined to the 11 applicant, is too short to reject the application. 7. The applicant is permanent resident of District Mandi, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, the applicant will not be available for the trial. Moreover, the applicant cannot be compelled to be the witness against himself, as, the same is violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 8. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order, dated 29.07.2025, is liable to be confirmed. Consequently, interim order, dated 29.07.2025, is made absolute and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 9. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant will not directly or indirectly, 12 make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application. 10. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined only to the disposal of the present bail application. 11. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant. (Virender Singh) Judge August 05, 2025 (Pramod)