Bail may be granted if the mandatory procedural requirements are not met by the prosecuting authority, despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri B.C. Jnanayyaswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) [Under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“ BNSS ” for short)] by accused No.1 seeking to enlarge him on regular bail in connection with FOC No.02/2025-26 for the offences punishable under Sections 24(e), 84, 85, 86 and 87 of the KARNATAKA FOREST ACT , 1963 (“K.F. Act” for short).

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 12.05.2025, the first informant viz, the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Mellegeri, was on patrolling duty at 2:30 a.m. at Mellegeri forest area. At that time, when the first informant was proceeding towards Sy.No.178, he heard the sound of cutting the trees beside the canal in the forest area and there he found an un-numbered TVS vehicle and he saw a person cutting the sandalwood tree and thus, caught hold the said person and two other persons ran away from the scene of offence in a motorcycle. Therefore, the first informant secured the said person and seized seven pieces of Sandalwood weighing 44.500 Kgs., and also seized the Redmi mobile and TVS Scooty and lodged the first information. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. During the course of investigation petitioner was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.1 contended that, he is an innocent and law abiding citizen. The Deputy Range Forest Officer has not complied with Sections 62(3) and 71-A of the K.F.Act. The petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family and is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State contended that the petitioner is habitual offender, and has previously been involved in forest offences and the Investigating Officer has seized 44.500 Kgs. of Sandalwood causing loss to the State exchequer. If released on bail, he may commit similar offences and he may flee away from justice. Hence, he prayed for rejection of bail petition.

6. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that on 12.05.2025 at about 2:30 a.m., at Mellegeri forest area, the petitioner and others were cutting the sandalwood trees and therefore the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Mellegeri seized 7 pieces of Sandalwood billets weighing 44.500 Kgs. from the possession of accused No.1 at the scene of offence, when he was cutting the Sandalwood trees in the forest area. The Investigating Officer has seized a motorcycle and Redmi mobile phone etc. As per the contents of FIR, the petitioner and others have committed theft of Sandalwood from the forest area.

7. Section 104-D of K.F.Act is special provision regulating bail matters in respect of offences under K.F. Act. As per the said Section, the accused seeking bail for offences committed under Sections 86 and 87 of K.F.Act, the accused has to satisfy the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the said offences. In the instant case, the petitioner - accused No.1 was caught red- handed by the Deputy Range Forest Officer, along with a motorcycle, mobile phone and 7 pieces of Sandalwood billets weighing 44.500 Kgs., with having knowledge and conscious of possession of sandalwood billets. A perusal of the complaint and seizure panchnama reveals that the Deputy Range Forest officer seized the Sandalwood billets from possession of accused No.1.

8. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to extract Section 62(3) of K.F.Act, which reads as under:

"62(3) Every officer seizing any property under this section 1 [xxx] shall, as soon as may be [make a re