1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HONBLE 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:

ORDER

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-L5394

and

No.KA13/8160.

Tata

Mobile

Jeep bearing registration

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.
Court.

Therefore, petitioners are before this

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.

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

express permission thereof.

Sd/-

JUDGE
SS*

without