IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7829/2018 BETWEEN SRI KUMARA ALIAS RAJKUMARA, S/O SUBBUNAIKA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O TANDAMEDU VILLAGE, RAMAPURA HOBLI KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571444 (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R V, ADV.) AND THE STATE BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, RAMAPURA WILD LIFE RANGE, KOUDALLI BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, BENGALURU 01 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN FOC NO.1/2018-19, DATED 04.08.2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 27,29,50 R/W 51,2(12A),12(B),(14),(15),(26),(33),(37) OF WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT U/S 21(1),(3)(4) R/W 4(1),(1A) OF MMRD AND RULE 42,44(1),(3) OF KMMCR RULES, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN) AND JMFC COURT, KOLLEGALA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in FOC No.1/2018-19 for the offences punishable under Sections 27, 29, 50 r/w Section 51, 2(12A), (12B), (14), (15), (26), (33), (37) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Sections 21(1), (3), (4) r/w Sections 4(1), (1A) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act and under Rule 42, 44(1) (3) of KMCR, 1994.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 04.08.2018 at about 3.10 a.m., the Forest Officials after receiving a credible information about illegal transportation of sand went to the spot and they found with the help of the battery that the tractor was coming from Kokkebare Halla forest area and they gave a signal to stop the tractor and the driver of the tractor stopped the tractor at some distance and accused ran away from the spot. At that time, Raju identified the said accused who ran away from the spot as Kumar, Maadesha, Puttatambadi, Mead Maadesha and Dore of Taandamedu Village (Hale Martalli) and on verification, the officials found that the trailer connected to tractor was filled with sand and the said tractor was bearing registration No.KA-10-T-8183 and the same was seized by drawing mahazar and the case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the accused/petitioner is not involved in the alleged crime and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the police have stated that they have seen the accused person using battery light but at the same time, they have stated that the accused were running from the spot. The same probabalize the situation that accused were not present. It is further submitted that the accused person has not involved in any serious offence.
He further submits that even when the compliant was registered, the tractor was found with sand and the mahazar which has been drawn disclose that the said tractor was filled with half of the sand. This information creates serious doubt. He further submits that the offence is neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that accused/petitioner along with other persons have entered into the reserved forest and they were transporting the sand without there being any license. The petitioner has been absconding in the earlier case registered in FOC No.3/2017 and he has been released on anticipatory bail by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar against the similar offence. As such, the petitioner/accused is not entitle to release on anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the order of the trial Court, reference has been made that the accused/petitioner has been released in Crl.Misc.No.5030/2018 and subsequently, the accused/petitioner has committed the similar offence and again he has involved in the present crime. Under the said circumstances, I feel that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail since accused person has violated the bail conditions and he is repeating the offence of similar nature.
Hence, the petition stands dismissed. In the event, if he surrenders before the Court the above observation will not come in the way to decide the case on merits.
VM CT:HR Sd/- JUDGE