1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5057/2014
BETWEEN:
VISHVA
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O K HAGALAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K A., ADV.)

AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
MADDUR POLICE STATION
MANDYA DISTRICT-571428

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI NAGESHWARAPPA K., HCGP)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO

ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CRIME NO.212/14 OF MADDUR P.S., MANDYA,
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 80, 24, 104 OF KARNATAKA
FOREST ACT AND 144 OF KARNATAKA FOREST RULES
AND SEC. 379 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory
bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the
offences punishable under Sections 80, 24, 104 of
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and 144 of Karnataka
Forest Rules and Section 379 of IPC registered in
respondent police station Crime No.212/2014.

2.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State.

3.

I have perused the averments made in the

bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed

on record. The complaint averments shows that on
11.05.2014, on credible information, the respondent
police that in the coconut garden of Vishwa/petitioner,
some persons had committed theft of Tinocarpus

Santhalum (Raktha Chandana) tree and somewhere had

stored the same and removing bark with the help of saw
and collecting the wood pulp for the purpose of sale.
On the said information the complainant along with his
staff and panchas went to the spot and noticed that six
persons were engaged in removing the bark and
collecting the wood pulp and they surrounded them and
five persons managed to escape and they caught hold of
one person and he revealed his name as Ramesha, who
is accused No.1.

He has also revealed the name of

Vishwa/petitioner and was not able to disclose the

name of other persons. It is also the averment in the
complaint that said billets of Raktha Chandana were
500-600 Kgs worth of Rs.10,00,000/- and they have
seized the said billets and three saws used for cutting
the wood and Tata Ace vehicle. Then, on the basis of the
voluntary statement of accused No.1, petitioner has
been arrayed as accused No.2

4.

It is the submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not found

at the spot there is no seizure of any Raktha Chandana

billets from his possession. He has also submitted that
only on the basis of voluntary statement made by
accused No.1, petitioners name is shown as accused
No.2 in the case.

5.

Perusing

the

materials,

the

Raktha

Chandana wooden billets said to be of 500-600 Kg along

with the vehicle and the instruments, were seized by the
police at the spot in the presence of panch witnesses.
So far as the contention of the prosecution that they
were stored in the coconut garden of petitioner, learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly, the
property number is not mentioned in the complaint and
also submitted that no such property is standing in the
name of the petitioner. Hence, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the case.

6.

As against this, the learned High Court

Government

Pleader,

during

the

course

of

his

arguments submitted that three other persons were yet

to be arrested in the case and interrogated. He has
submitted that the matter is still under investigation
and at this stage petitioner is not entitled to be granted
with anticipatory bail.

7.

Perusing the prosecution materials produced

in the case, so also the contention of the petitioner that

there is no basis for the prosecution to say that Raktha
Chandana billets were stored in the coconut garden of
the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner is right
in his submission. Looking to the alleged offences, they
are

not

exclusively

punishable

with

death

or

imprisonment for life. Petitioner has undertaken to

abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.
Looking to these materials on record, I am of the
opinion

that

by

imposing

reasonable

conditions

petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail.

8.

Accordingly,

petition

is

allowed.

The

respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present

petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the

alleged offence punishable under Sections 80, 24, 104
of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and 144 of Karnataka
Forest Rules and Section 379 of IPC registered in
respondent police station Crime No.212/2014, subject
to the following conditions:
i.

Petitioner has to execute a personal

bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to
furnish one solvent surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the
concerned Court.

ii.

Petitioner shall not tamper with any of

the prosecution witnesses, directly or
indirectly.

iii.

Petitioner has to make himself

available before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation, as and when
called for.

iv.

The petitioner has to appear before the

concerned Court within 30 days from
the date of this order and to execute
the personal bond and the surety
bond.

Sd/JUDGE

BSR