The conduct of the accused and the seriousness of the offences are important factors in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

M G Uma, J. - The petitioners-accused Nos.5,7,8 and 10 to 14 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.187/1993 of Dabaspet Police Station, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Sri M. Subramanya, Dy. S.P., Forest Cell, Bangalore.

2. Heard Sri Leeladhar H.P., learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Initially, the FIR was registered in the year 1993 and it was only against accused Nos.1 to 3. These petitioners were not named in the FIR. However, much later, while filing the charge sheet, they were arrayed as accused. But the petitioners never informed about the fact that they are arrayed as accused. Recently, they came to know about the registration of the case against them. They filed similar petition before the trial Court which came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged. They are ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. Since the offence in question is said to be of the year 1993, no purpose would be served by taking the petitioners into custody and investigating the matter. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition. Learned counsel further submitted that even though it is stated that the petitioners are proclaimed offenders, the procedure as contemplated under law to proclaim the petitioners as offenders are not followed. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are the proclaimed offenders. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Even though they are not named in the first information, during investigation it was revealed that these petitioners are involved in the commission of offences. The charge sheet was filed during March-1995. Till date, the petitioners are absconding. They were proclaimed to be offenders and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was initiated during the year 2008. Even then the petitioners could not be arrested. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offences and also the conduct of the petitioners, the petitioners are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

'Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?'

My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:

REASONS

7. The allegations were initially made against accused Nos.1 to 3 stating that they were transporting huge quantity of sandalwood billets towards Delhi. They were chased and apprehended. The sandalwood billets were seized. During investigation, the accused have revealed the names of these petitioners. The charge sheet was filed showing these petitioners as absconding. Admittedly, the petitioners were proclaimed as offenders and the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. was initiated. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has not produced the order sheet of the trial Court for the reasons best known to him. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel that proceedings under S