1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6858 OF 2012

BETWEEN: 1. SRI.MANJAIAH

S/O KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

2. SRI.RAMAIAH

S/O SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

3. SRI.NAGAIAH

S/O JULAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

4. SRI.DINESH

S/O PUTTASWAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT IDALLI COLONY KANATHI POST

CHIKMAGLUR TALUK – 577 101. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI.H.N.M.PRASAD AND SRI.R.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVS.,]

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY

2

RANGE FOREST OFFICER ALDUR FOREST RANGE CHIKKMAGLUR DISTRICT – 577 101.

…RESPONDENT [BY SRI.G.M.SRINIVAS REDDY, HCGP]

***** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

438 OF THE CR.P.C. WITH A PRAYER TO ENLARGE THE

PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN

C.C.NO.179/2012 ARISING OUT OF FOC NO.46/07-08 OF

RFO, ALDUR REGISTERED ON THE FILE OF THE J.M.F.C.,

CHIKMAGALUR, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 50, 71A AND 104A OF

KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND RULE 144 OF KARNATAKA

FOREST RULES.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING FOR ORDERS ON

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Apprehending their arrest by the respondent Range

Forest Officer, Aldur Forest Range, in connection with

forest offences case registered in FOC No.46/07-08 in

C.C.No.179/2012 before the J.M.F.C., Chikmagalur

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 50,

71A, 104A of Karnataka Forest Act and Rule 144 of

Karnataka Forest Rules, petitioners arraigned as accused

3

Nos.2 to 5 have presented this petition under Section 438

of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of

Anticipatory Bail.

2. According to the case of prosecution, in the night

of 14.1.2008, the forest officials received credible

information that logs of Beete tree is being illegally

transported by some miscreants in Aldur Range.

Immediately, the forest officials along with their staff came

on to the Aldur, Balehennur Road and while keeping

watch there, at about 12.50 a.m. in the mid night they

saw a two-wheeler and four wheeler coming from Aranur

side and on seeing the departmental vehicles, these

miscreants stopped the vehicles at a distance and by the

time forest officials could go near the vehicles, the culprits

had ran away from the place. At that place forest officals

noticed a two-wheeler bearing registration No.KA18-L-

5394 and a Tata Mobile Jeep bearing registration

No.KA13/8160. They also saw logs of Beete tree in the

jeep. They seized the vehicles as well as the logs of beete

4

tree and registered forest offence case. On 15.1.2008

presence of one A.H.Rudregowda, registered owner of the

two wheeler was secured and during interrogation, he

disclosed that the motor cycle belonging to him was taken

by accused No.1-Krishnegowda on the previous day

evening stating that he has to take his child who is not

keeping good health to the hospital. Thereafter, accused

No.1 was apprehended and he said to have confessed to

the crime and also said to have disclosed the complicity of

these petitioners in the commission of the offence. On that

basis these petitioners were arraigned as accused Nos. 2

to 5. On coming to know of the registration of the case and

arraigning them as accused, these petitioners approached

the learned Sessions Judge seeking relief of Anticipatory

Bail. However, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the

petition holding that there is a clear bar in Section 104D

of the Karnataka Forest Act for granting relief of

Anticipatory Bail. Therefore, petitioners are before this

Court.

5

3. The petition is opposed by respondent-State.

4. I have heard both the sides and perused the

records made available.

5. Admittedly, petitioners have been arraigned as

accused in the forest offence case registered by the

respondent and therefore, the apprehension of the

petitioners that they are likely to be arrested is well

founded.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that the rejection of the petition filed under Section 438 of

Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sessions

Judge on the premise that there is a bar in Section 104D

of the Karnataka Forest Act for grant of Anticipatory Bail

is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of

this Court in the case of H.S.Manjunath vs. State of

Karnataka reported in I.L.R.1994 KAR 3302 and the

decision in the case of C.Abdul Hameed vs. The State of

Karnataka reported in I.L.R 1999 KAR 1626.

6

7. In the first reported decision question, which

arose for consideration was

“Whether the High Court or Sessions

Court can grant bail to the petitioners under

Section 438 Cr.P.C., while they are accused

of the offences punishable under the

Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and apprehend

arrest at the hands of the Range Forest

Officer?”

8. On consideration of the provisions of the Act and

also the provisions of Section 438 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, the Division Bench has held that the Court is

empowered to grant Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of

Code of Criminal Procedure even in respect of offences

under the Karnataka Forest Act.

9. In the second reported decision this Court has

held that under Section 104D of the Karnataka Forest Act

there is no provision of making Section 438 Cr.P.C.,

inapplicable to the cases arising under the said Act.

Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that there is no

7

prohibition or bar for entertaining the petition for

anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., when an

accusation is made against the accused under provisions

of the Karnataka Forest Act, including the offences

punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the said Act.

However, the Court has held that the grant of relief is

subject to Clause (A) and (B) of Section 104-D of the

Karnataka Forest Act. In the light of the above two

decisions, the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in

holding that the application under Section 438 of Code of

Criminal Procedure is not maintainable.

10. As noticed supra, the whole case of the

prosecution against these petitioners is based on the

alleged statement of accused Nos.1. Apart from the

alleged statement of accused No.1, there is nothing on

record to prima facie establish the complicity of these

petitioners for the offences alleged. Therefore, at this

stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the

petitioners are guilty of any of the offences alleged. In this

8

view of the matter, petitioners are entitled for relief of

Anticipatory Bail.

11. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The

respondents are hereby directed to release the petitioner

on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the

case in FOC No.46/07-08 (C.C.No. C.C.NO.179/2012) Aldur

Forest Range, on each of them executing personal bonds

for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)

with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

arresting Officer and subject to further conditions that:

1) Within 15 days from today, petitioners

shall appear before the jurisdictional

Magistrate where the charge sheet is filed

and upon such appearance they shall be

released on bail subject to conditions

contained herein

i) The petitioners shall not tamper or

terrorise the prosecution witnesses in

any manner.

9

ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any

acts similar to the one alleged in the

case.

iii) The petitioners shall not go out of the

jurisdiction of Special Court without

express permission thereof.

Sd/- JUDGE

SS*