IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 20Th1 DAY OF MARCH 2012

BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10295/2012

BETWEEN:

1. Mahmmed Isuf,
S/o. Abdul Khadar Koitewale,
Age: 52 years, 0cc.: Flower Merchant.

2. Ayubkhan,
S/o. Mahmmed Hanif Fathan,
AGe: 40 years, 0cc.: Driver.

Both are R/o. Khadarbag Savanur,

Tq.: Savanur, Dist.: Haven.
Petitioners
[By Shri Srinand A. Pachhapure, Advocate]

AND:

The State of Karnataka.

By Tadas Police Station,
Now rep. by SPP.
Respondent
[By Shri Anand K. Navalgimath, H.C.G.P.j

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to grant bail to
the petitioner with conditions in Crime No.03/2012
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and 86, 87, 24(E) of
Karnataka Forest Act read with Rule 144 of Karnataka
Forest Rules, by the respondent Tadas Police Station.

This criminal petition coming on for orders, this

day, the Court made the following: -

ORDER

In this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners who have been

arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.03/2012 of

Tadas Police Station, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 379 and 41 1 of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 86, 87 and 24(e) of Karnataka

Forest Act, 1963, read with Rules 144 of the Karnataka

Forest Rules. 1969, have sought for an order to enlarge

them on bail,

2. According to the case of the prosecution, at

about 09:00 a.m. on 29.01.2012, the Police Sub

Inspector, Tadas Police Station, received a telephonic

message from Deput\ Superintendent of Police,

Shiggaon, that two persons proceeding on a motor cycle

are carrying sandalwood billets in gunny bags;

immediately, Police Sub-Inspector along with his staff

and Panchas came near Adavisompaur cross on NH-4

and while watching there, these two petitioners came on

a motorcycle bearing registration No.IKA-27/U-3 148,

holding 3 gunny bags and immediately they were

intercepted; on verification the gunny bags were found

containing sandalwood billets, in all weighing 56

kilograrns as the petitioners were unable to give

satisfactory explanation for possession of the

sandalwood billets, those sandalwood billets as well as

the motor cycle, were seized under a panchanama,

these two petitioners were apprehended and on the

basis of the report lodged by the Police Sub-Inspector,

the case came to be registered and investigation was

taken. When petitioners were produced before the

learned Magistrate, they were remanded to Judicial

Custody. Their application filed before the learned

Sessions Judge for bail came to be rejected. Therefore,

the petitioners are before this Court.

3. The petition is opposed by the respondent —

State.
 :4:

4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records

made available.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioners that with regard to the alleged

seizure, the petitioners have given their explanation.

According to the petitioners, at the time of interception,

they were carrying flowers in gunny bags for the

purpose of business, hving purchased the same in the

market and they have been falsely implicated in the

case. Of course, as per the materials on record, the

petitioners were stated to be carrying sandalwood billets

in the gunny bags. No doubt, as per the Section 104-D

of Karnataka Forest Act, a person accused of offence

under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act,

if he is in custody, cannot be released on his own bond,

if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable

grounds to believe that he is guilty of such offence. In

other words, he can be released only if the Court is

satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe

that he is not guilty of such offence.

 :5:

6. Having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, at this stage I am of the

considered opinion that there are no reasonable

grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the

aforesaid offences. It is also brought to the notice of this

Court that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner

No.1 has been fixed to be held on 25.03.2012. To this

effect the petitioner has also produced the marriage

invitation card.

7. Having regard to the facts arid

circumstances of the case, I am of the considered

opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged

on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioners

are ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with

the case in Crime No.03/20 12 of Tadas Police Station,

on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and subject to

further conditions: -
 :6:

i) The petitioners shall not intimidate or

tamper with the prosecution witnesses
in any manner;

ii) The petitioners shall appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when so
directed and co-operate in the
investigation of the case;

iii) The petitioners shall appear on all

hearing dates before the Court without
fail;

iv) The petitioners shall not indulge in any

acts similar to one alleged in the case;

v) The petitioners shall not go out of

Haven District without express
permission of the Jurisdictional Court
thereof.

Sd/lb

Rsh