( 1 ) THIS petition is filed u/s. 438, Cr. P. C. , for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of the arrest of the petitioner by Belthangady Police in Crime No. 94/98 of that Police Station, for the offences punishable under Ss. 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The petitioner having failed in his attempt to get an order of bail in the hands of the learned Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, has approached this Court for a similar relief.

( 2 ) IT is alleged by the Police that on 14-6-1998, at about 7. 00 p. m. , the Sub-Inspector of Police received a telephonic message to the effect that the petitioner has stored Sandalwood illegally in the bathroom of this house at Thotathadi Village. The Sub-Inspector immediately went to the said place along with his staff and reached the said place at about 7-45 p. m. The petitioner who was present in the backyard of his house took to his heels. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector searched his house in the presence of Panchas and found a gunny bag kept tied in the corner of the bathroom. On opening the same, he noticed Sandalwood billets in the said bag, weighing about 20. 500 Kgs. valued at Rs. 8,200/-, and seized the same under a Mahazar in the presence of Panchas. He came back to the Police Station and registered a suo motu complaint against the petitioner. It is in this background, the petitioner filed this bail petition apprehending his arrest by the Belthangady Police.

( 3 ) IN his application filed under S. 438, Cr. P. C. , the petitioner has contended that he has not committed any offence under the Act. He is innocent of the offences alleged against him. There are no reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of the offences punishable under Ss. 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. He further contended that the Police have registered a false case against him at the behest of the persons who are inimically disposed of towards him by planting Sandalwood billets in the bathroom. He is an agriculturist by profession. He belongs to a respectable family. He has got his wife and children. If he is arrested and detained in custody, his family members would be put to great hardship and inconvenience. He undertakes to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

( 4 ) THE State has opposed grant of bail on the ground that there are grounds to believe that the accused-petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged against him. It is contended by the Prosecution that the Sub-Inspector of Police, on credible information, inspected the house of the petitioner in the presence of Panchas and found Sandal- wood billets weighing 20. 500 Kgs. and seized them under a Mahazar. Therefore, there is prima facie material against the accused for believing that he is guilty of the said offences.

( 5 ) SRI. Rajendra Reddy for Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that at the first instance, there is no bar under S. 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act to grant anticipatory bail for offences punishable under S. 86 and 87, as the said provisions have not created the embargo for exercising the discretion of the Court. It is his contention that the bar contained in S. 104-D of the Act is attracted only if the accused is found in custody for the said offences. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Gaffarsab v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1991 (1) Kant LJ 12 : (1991 Cri LJ 2136), in support of his contentions. Secondly, he has contended that the materials placed before the Court are not sufficient grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of the offences alleged against him.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the first contention canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioner it is useful to extract the provisions of S. 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act. It reads as follows :"104-D. Special provision regarding bail.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) no per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document