Forest Officers cannot be equated with Police Officers under S. 438, Cr. P. C. and therefore, the relief of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioners.

( 1 ) THE short and common point that arises for determination in these two criminal petitions filed under S. 438, Cr. P. C. is whether a person apprehending arrest by a Range Forest Officer authorised to arrest him in connection with certain forest offences under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act,) can be granted the relief of anticipatory bail under S. 438, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) PETITIONER in Cr. P. No. 1424/90 had approached the Sessions Judge, D. K. District Mangalore (for short 'the Sessions Judge') with an application under S. 438, Cr. P. C. in Cr. Misc. Case No. 96/90 praying for a direction to the Range Forest Officer Udupi (for short 'the Forest Officer') to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 56/90-91 registered in the office of the said Forest Officer. It was stated in the application filed by him that on credible information that a wild jack tree had been cut and removed from the forest area in Pernankila village, the Mobile Forest Squad, Moodabidri made a search for the cut portions of the said wild jack tree near about the house of the petitioner and in the course of the search they found four cut sizes of that tree in the 'kere' and six cut sizes inside a bush just in front of the house of the petitioner. The Forest Squad seized the said cut pieces under a mahazar and on returning to their office, registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 56/90-91 and submitted FIR to the jurisdictional Court. Therefore, the petitioner apprehending that he is likely to be arrested in connection with Crime No. 56/9091 sought anticipatory bail. But, the FIR in Crime No. 56/ 90-91 said to have been sent by the Forest Officer to the jurisdictional Court was not produced before the learned Sessions Judge along with the application for anticipatory bail.

( 3 ) PETITIONER in Cr. P. No. 1490/91 had also sought the relief of anticipatory bail under S. 438, Cr. P. C. from the learned Sessions Judge, in Cr. Misc. Case N0. 121/90 for a direction to the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Moodaabidri Sub-Division (for short the 'acf') to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in O. R. No. 88/90-91 of the said ACF. The material allegations made in his application were that the ACF found an autorikshaw bearing No. MYD 7654 proceeding on Niddody-Muchoor road in Karkala Taluk on 2-9-1990. The driver and the two others seated in that autorikshaw on seeing the ACF abandoned the autorikshaw and ran away. On examining that autorikshaw, ACF found in it 56 sandalwood billets and chips weighing 36 Kgs : valued at Rs. 3,600/ -. Therefore, the ACF seized the autorikshaw and the sandalwood billets and chips. One of the three persons including the driver found in that autorikshaw was stated to be the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner apprehending that he is likely to be arrested in connection with O. R. No. 88/90-91 sought anticipatory bail. The offences for which O. R. No. 88/90-91 is registered are stated to be offences under Ss. 86 and 87 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has declined the relief of anticipatory bail sought by the petitioners in both the cases by separate but similar orders dated 23-10-1990 on the main ground that the Forest Officer in the first case and the ACF in the second case cannot be regarded as a Police Officer within the meaning of sub-sec. (2) of S. 438, Cr. P. C. and the office of the Forest Officer in one case and of the ACF in the other case cannot be regarded as a Police Station under the Cr. P. C. and, therefore, the relief of anticipatory bail sought by the petitioners cannot be granted although the offences under Ss. 86 and 87 of the Act in respect of which O. R. No. 88/90-91 is registered against the petitioner in Cr. P. No. 1490/90 are cognizable and non-bailable offences. He observed that the offences for which Crime No. 56/90-91 was registered in respect of the petitioner in the other case cannot be made out as copy of the FI R. w