Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 963
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (KALABURAGI BENCH)
P.N. Desai, J.
Thabaresh @ Tabbu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 200413 of 2020
Decided On : 17-07-2020
Sharanabasappa M Patil, Advocate, Ganesh Naik, Advocate, A.S. Rawoor, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no bar for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in cases arising under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Offences under Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 - Sections 24(c)(2), (e), 62, 71(a), 84 and 86 R/w 104-B - Court allows anticipatory bail petition based on lack of prima facie evidence and references previous judgments on applicability of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to cases under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of cutting sandalwood trees in a reserved forest area. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued that there was no bar under Section 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 for granting anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found discrepancies in the prosecution's case, lack of evidence against the petitioner, and referenced previous judgments to support the applicability of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to cases under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The Court held that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception, and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and if there was a bar under Section 104-D of the Act for granting anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the lack of prima facie evidence against the petitioner, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and the settled principle that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. The Court also considered the larger interest of public or the state and imposed stringent conditions on the petitioner to address the apprehension of the prosecution.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition and ordered the petitioner to be enlarged on anticipatory bail with specific conditions, including a self bond and surety, non-tampering with witnesses, and cooperation with the investigating officer.
JUDGMENT
P N Desai, J. - It is found that at Page Nos.19 to 23 documents were produced by learned counsel for the petitioner, are irrelevant and not connected to this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall remove them from the case file.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FOC.No.60/2019-20 of Deputy Range Forest Office Section Kavithal, District Raichur for the offences punishable under Sections 24(c) (2), (e), 62, 71(a), 84 and 86 R/w 104-B of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
3. The brief contention of the petitioner is that complaint was lodged by the Deputy Range Forest Officer Section Kavithal alleging that on 02.03.2020 he has received credible information about the cutting of Sandalwood Trees in the reserved forest area of Thimmapur village. The complainant and his staff and panchas reached the reserved forest area and found in torch light at a distance of 30 meters from Thimmapur road some persons. They surrounded the said place. There were three persons, who after witnessing the forest officials attempted to run away from the spot. Thereafter accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended at the spot and petitioner however escaped. On interrogation accused Nos.1 and 2 they informed their names and other details. Thereafter, they inspected the spot and found that accused persons had cut 14 sandalwood trees and also found 08 sandalwood billets totally weighing 20.99 K.Gs and 14 pieces of chakke of different sizes. They found a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-28-EX-2063 belonging to accused and axeblade and seized the said articles under Mahazar at the spot and arrested the accused persons. On the basis of complaint, the Deputy Range Forest Officer Section Kavithal has registered the case in FOC.No.60/2019-20 for the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur has rejected the anticipatory bail petition. So, petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any crime. He further contended that rejection of the petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the premise that, there is a bar under section 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the reported decision of this Court has held that, under Section 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 there is no Bar for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Only on the basis of voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 this petitioner has been made as accused. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The investigation is already completed and this petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is from a respectable family and having movable and immovable properties. He further stated that the other two accused Nos.1 and 2 are already released on bail by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Raichur in Crl.Misc.No.267/2020 dated 12.05.2020. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition. So, with these main grounds, the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has filed objections contending that during the interrogation accused Nos.1 and 2 informed their names and other details. The accused persons had cut 14 sandalwood Trees and also 08 sandalwood billets totally weighing 20.99 K.Gs and 14 pieces of chakke of different sizes. The anticipatory bail was rejected by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Raichur in view of Section 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 which restricts the power of Court to grant anticipatory bail. So, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the learned High Court Government Pleader prayed to reject the bail petition.
6. Heard Sri. Ganesh Naik, learn
