Bail plea of five men held for ‘cutting mangroves’ dismissed

A judicial magistrate has dismissed the bail application of five men in a case pertaining to cutting mangroves. Ismail, Qadir, Ali, Abdul Ghafoor, and Asif were arrested and booked by Maripur police on the complaint of a forest range officer for their alleged involvement in the illegal activity of cutting mangrove trees near Mazar Shidi Baba on Manora Road at Sandspit beach on June 4.

The suspects through their lawyer Sardar Javed moved the bail application before Judicial Magistrate (West) Inaamullah Phulpoto. After hearing both sides, the magistrate dismissed the bail plea.

"In view of the seriousness of the offence, the environmental harm caused, the recovery of stolen property, and the potential for the accused to abscond or tamper with evidence, I am of the considered view that the applicants have not made out a case for the grant of bail at this stage," he ruled.

The magistrate observed that the allegations against the applicants were serious in nature, adding that the FIR, though not assigning specific roles, clearly stated that they were apprehended at the scene with stolen mangrove wood and an electric saw.

He noted that the recovery of 1,790 kilograms of wood, while substantial, was not implausible given the presence of multiple accused and the use of mechanical tools. "The environmental implications of the offence cannot be ignored. Mangroves are a national asset, and their destruction has long-term consequences for coastal resilience, marine life, and climate regulation," he maintained.

"The argument that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause is not sufficient in itself to grant bail. The Honourable High Court of Sindh in Muhammad Aslam vs. The State clarified that the nature of the offense, its impact on society, and the strength of the evidence must all be considered."

Furthermore, the court observed, the possibility of the suspects absconding or influencing the investigation cannot be ruled out. The escape of several accomplices from the scene raised concerns about the applicants’ potential to evade justice or coordinate with others to obstruct the investigation, it said.

The defence counsel contended that the applicants were innocent fishermen who were present at the location for rest and routine activities. He argued that the FIR was vague and did not assign any specific role to any of the suspects as none was alleged to have been in possession of any particular item of stolen property, nor was there any clear attribution of who used the electric saw or who cut the mangroves. An FIR was lodged under Sections 379 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 26 of the Forest Act.