IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1807 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC)

/ 483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SYED ARBAZ, S/O. SYED MUKTHIYAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 2. AFRID SHARIEF S/O MAHABOOB JAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BOTH ARE R/AT BANGALORE SUSHMA NEAR MADEENA MASID, LAKSHMI BISMILLA NAGAR, Location: High Court of KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, Karnataka BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562114.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETHAN A.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGARPET POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THEM ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.1/2026 OF BANGARPET POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 303(2) OF BNS AND SECTIONS 86, 87 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 READ WITH SECTIONS 144, 145 OF KARNATAKA FOREST RULES, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND JMFC COURT, AT BANGARPET. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1/2026 of Bangarpet Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 86, 87 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 read with Sections 144, 145 of Karnataka Forest Rules pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Bangarpet. The petitioners have sought for regular bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was working as a police officer at Bangarpet filed the complaint stating that on 01.01.2026 at about 04.45 p.m., the crime branch staff were on patrolling duty on account of new year celebration. They had received an information that some four persons were loading wooden pieces in two plastic bags into the car. Suspecting the same, the complainant went near the railway station, and enquired the said four persons about the items found in the gunny bags. Immediately the said four persons left the car, and ran away, and escaped from there. After informing the staff and others, the complainant checked the car, and found the bed sheet, sweater and two plastic gunny bags. When it was opened, it contained seven sandalwood pieces in one gunny bag and fourteen sandalwood pieces in another gunny bag. It was total weighing 22 kgs worth of ₹1,76,000/- and also seized one Hyundai i10 car worth of ₹1,50,000/-.

3. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent/police registered the case for the offences as stated supra.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are the innocent of the alleged offences, and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are not owner of the car, and there is no nexus between the car, and the sandalwood pieces with the petitioners. In fact, FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. Thereafter, on the basis of the voluntary statement, the accused came to be arrested. They have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners were arrested on 03.01.2026. In fact, the petitioners were not aware about the said sandalwood found in the said car. Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions by this Court. They would abide by the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State vehemently submitted that the investigation is under progress. The evidence of the material witnesses has been recorded. The offences mentioned in the FIR are punishable with imprisonment for a period of ten years and also fine. Such being the fact, it is not appropriate to grant them bail. Making such submission, he prayed to reject the petition.