IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9733/2018 BETWEEN:
1. Sri.A.P.Sunil, S/o Puttaraju, Aged about 28 years, Residing at Doddaalvara Village, Thorenoor Post, Somawarpet Taluk, Kodagu District – 571234.
2. Sri.A.R.Ramesh, S/o Raju Aged about 28 years, Residing at Chikkaalvara Village, Thorenoor Post, Somawarpet Taluk, Kodagu District – 571234. ...Petitioners (By Sri.C.P.Puttaraja, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Deputy Range Forest Officer cum Surveyor, Banavara Section, Somawarpete Range, Rep. by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560001. ... Respondent (By Sri.Nasrulla Khan, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in F.O.C.No.43/2018-19 (FIR No.301/2018) registered by Deputy Range Forest Officer, Banavara Section, Somwarpet Range, Madikeri for the offences punishable under Sections 62, 71A-G, 80, 104(A) of Karnataka Forest Act and Section 127-A, 144, 145 and 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules.
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 accused/petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in F.O.C No.43/2018-19 (FIR No.301/2018) by Deputy Range Forest Officer cum Surveyor, Banavara Section, Somwarpet Range for the offences punishable under Sections 62, 71A-G, 80, 104(A) of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Sections 127-A, 144, 145 and 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 and other allied Sections.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that on 14.12.2018, on credible information the respondent Forest officials have gone to Basiruguppe and their they noticed transporting Beete logs in an auto rickshaw at about 8.20 p.m., by seeing the Forest officials they ran away leaving the auto rickshaw and one motor cycle. The said auto rickshaw, Beete logs and a two wheeler were seized and by drawing the mahazar, a case has been registered in this behalf.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are working as coolie and are innocent. The accused/petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The accused/petitioners are not connected to the alleged crime. Only because of the reason that auto rickshaw is standing in the name of the accused No.1 he has been falsely implicated for the said case. He further submits that accused/petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on them by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the accused/petitioners on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the accused/petitioners have involved in serious offence. As per Section 104D of the Forest Act, 1963, the accused persons are not entitled to be released on bail though prima facie material is produced before the Court. He further submits that the accused/petitioners are habitual offender, if they are released on bail they may indulge in similar type of activities. Accused/petitioner No.1 is the owner cum driver of the said auto rickshaw and he has not explained under what circumstances the said vehicle was there at the spot. Therefore, there is ample materials to connect the accused/petitioners. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On perusal of the records, it indicates that on credible information the forest officials have gone to the spot, then the passenger auto rickshaw was there and in that auto rickshaw there was Beete logs. By seeing the forest officials they ran away from the place. Whether the accused/petitioners are involved in the said case is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. Though it is contended by the learned HCGP that under Section 104D of the Forest Act, 1963 the accused/petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail but on close reading of the said Section if the accused/petitioners are released on bail then under such circumstances, the prosecution has to give an opinion to oppose the said application and if after substantial reasonable ground for believing that the accused/petitioners is not coming under the said offence then the Court can release him on bail by prima-facie going through the material and other things the accused/petitioners is entitled to be released on bail.
8. Taking in to consideration the above said facts and circumstances, petition is allowed. Accused/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in F.O.C No.43/2018-19 (FIR No.301/2018) by Deputy Range Forest Officer cum Surveyor, Banavara Section, Somwarpet Range for the offences punishable under Sections 62, 71A-G, 80, 104(A) of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Sections 127-A, 144, 145 and 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional police of forest official.
2. They shall surrender before the forest official within 15 days from today.
3. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
4. They shall mark their attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the concerned forest official till the trial is concluded.
5. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the jurisdictional Court.
6. They shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities during the pendency of the said case. If they again indulge then the respondent police is at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of the bail.
Sd/- JUDGE NS