Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Shekhara vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|11 March, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.417/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri Shekhara S/o Sri Shivanna, Aged about 42 years, R/at Kyathanagere Village, Madihalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District-573 121. …Petitioner (By Sri C.R.Gopalaswamy, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Range Forest Officer, Belur, Rept. By Public Prosecutor, State Public Prosecutor High Court Building, Bengaluru. …Respondent (By Sri M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in FOC No.17/2018-19 of RFO Beluru for the offence P/U/S 104(D), 86, 87 of Karnataka Forest Act and Rule 144 and 165 of Karnataka Forest Act and Rules.
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 No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C to release him on bail in Crime No.17/2018-19 of Range Forest Officer, Beluru for the offences punishable under Sections 86, 87 and 104 (D) of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 read with Rules 144 and 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the land bearing Sy.No.113 situated at Ramachandrapura Village, in the said land, the sandalwood tree was grown and the accused persons were illegally cut and converted into billets. On 14.12.2018 at about 5.00 a.m. they went to remove the root, at that time, Forest Officials who were on patrolling noticed and came to the said land bearing Sy.No.113 in a jeep and they found that the accused were cutting the sandalwood tree illegally and by seeing the Forest Officials, they fled away from the spot. However, the petitioner-accused No.1 was caught at the spot and other persons absconded. Thereafter, petitioner-accused No.1 revealed the name of the other accused persons who absconded. The motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA- 46-H-7598 belonging to petitioner-accused No.1 along with sandalwood billets weighting 41 Kgs. seized and the mahazar was drawn.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had been to Police Station for getting release his seized vehicle and a false case was registered against him. He further submitted that the said sandalwood billets have been seized from the spot and not from the possession of the petitioner-accused No.1. He further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Since, three months he is in custody and almost all the investigation procedure have been completed and petitioner-accused No.1 is not required for the purpose of the investigation or interrogation. He further submitted that the complaint is also cryptic and there is no specific averments alleged against petitioner-accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.1 is ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also ready to offer sureties, if he is released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the sandalwood tree was grown in land bearing Sy.No.113 and the accused persons were illegally cutting the tree. He further submitted that cutting of the tree effects the ecology and it is a huge loss to the Government. He further submitted that 18 billets of sandalwood have been seized by the drawring mahazar. The petitioner-accused No.1 is a habitual offender and if he released on bail, he may indulge in similar type of criminal activities, the other accused persons are absconding and still they are not traced. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. The contents of the complaint and other materials discloses that when the Forest Officials were on patrolling duty they came near the land bearing Sy.No.113 and found that the petitioner-accused No.1 and other accused persons were cutting the sandalwood tree illegally and by seeing the officials, they fled away from the spot. The petitioner-accused No.1 was caught and they have seized the said articles where the petitioner-accused No.1 is involved, is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but the only allegation which has been made by the learned HCGP is that the petitioner-accused No.1 is a habitual offender and if he is released on bail, he may indulge in similar type of criminal activities, the same can be protected by imposing some stringent conditions.
8. Under the said facts and circumstances, he is entitled to be released on bail. In that light, the petition is allowed and petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.17/2018-19 of Range Forest Officer, Beluru for the offences punishable under Sections 86, 87 and 104 (D) of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 read with Rules 144 and 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 subject to following conditions:
1. Petitioner-accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.
2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution of the evidence directly or indirectly.
3. He shall not indulged in similar type of criminal activities that the investigation agency is permitted to file the application for cancellation of bail .
4. He shall mark his attendance on the first date of every month between 10:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m before the jurisdictional police till the trial is concluded.
5. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission Sd/- JUDGE HA/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Shekhara vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
11 March, 2019
Judges
  • B A Patil