IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9386/2018 BETWEEN:
Murugesh S/o Raja Manikya, Aged about 40 years, R/o Viruppinkoppa, Kotegangur Village Post, Shivmogga Taluk – 577 203.
...Petitioner (By Sri.Sateesh Chandra K.V., Advocate) AND:
The State by Range Forest Officer Chitradurga Division, Chitradurga Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.FOC No.04/2018-19(S.C. No.113/2018) of RFO, Chitradurga Division, Chitradurga for the offences punishable under Sections 24, 62, 84, 86, 87 of Karnataka Forest Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.04/2018 of Range Forest Officer, Chitradurga Division, Chitradurga for the offence punishable under Sections 24, 62, 84, 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 04.07.2018 the forest officials secured the credible information about transporting of sandalwood billets illegally from Jogimatty Forest area. Immediately, they went and on seeing the forest officers and other persons, the accused persons ran away from the spot and accused No.2 was caught hold. On the basis of the voluntary statement he admitted the fact that there was illegal transportion of sandalwood billets, a case has been registered and subsequently, the name of the accused No.1-petitioner has been incorporated.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.2, further proceedings have been taken place. But the name of accused No.1 was not mentioned in the voluntary statement of accused No.2. He further submitted that already accused No.2 has been released on bail and charge-sheet has also been filed. He further submitted that he has filed the bail application about three months back and now it is reached today and as such, the proclamation has been issued as against the petitioner-accused No.1. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of Kallurasetty Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2010 (5) KCCR 4363. He further submits that he is ready to abide any of the conditions imposed on them by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition 5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that accused No.1 is absconding since from the date of registration of the case and even the Sessions Court issued proclamation against accused No.1 and when a proclamation is already pending as against the petitioner/accused No.1, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. She further submitted that accused is habitual offender and if he is released on bail, he would indulge in similar type of activities. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have perused the records including the proclamation issued in this behalf.
7. As could be seen from the said records, the alleged incident took place on 04.07.2018 when the accused persons were intended to transport of sandalwood billets illegally from Jogimatty Forest area. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of accused No.1 has not been stated in the voluntary statement of accused No.2 but in the charge sheet accused No.1 is shown as a accused and proclamation has already been issued as against accused No.1 by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.113/2018. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Pradeep Sharma reported in 2014(2) SCC 171 has held that a person against whom proclamation or non-bailable warrant is issued or has absconded, is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and seek for anticipatory bail. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, petition is dismissed.
However liberty is given to the petitioner to surrender himself and move for regular bail before the trial Court. If such an application for regular bail is moved by the petitioner, the trial Court shall consider the same afresh without in any way being influenced by the observations made by this Court in this order.
Sd/- JUDGE UN