High CourtsSingle Bench

S.Abbobackar Siddik & Others vs State Of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 28 January 2022 · Citation: (2022) 01 KAR CK 0059

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.P. Sandesh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 439 · Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 — Sections 24(d)(e), 83, 84, 85, 86 · Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 — Rule 165
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 10114 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

44 paragraphs · 874 words

H.P. Sandesh, J

1.

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime

No.8/2021-2022 of RFO Kalladka Branch, Bantwal Forest Range, Managaluru Division, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 24(d)

(e), 83, 84, 85, 86 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that on 24.06.2021, the Range Forest Officer of Kalladka, Bantwal registered a case against these two petitioners

and also against accused Nos.1 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 24(d)(e), 83, 84, 85, 86 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 165

of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, stating that on the basis of the credible information received, a raid was conducted at Veerakamba Reserve Forest

Block 1 of Bantwala Region, they heard the sound of cutting the trees and accordingly when they went to the spot, they found 3 persons indulged in

illegally chiseling sandal wood and when they went near those persons for the purpose of apprehending them, those persons had tried to escape from

the place and they were able to apprehend one of those persons and two persons escaped from the spot and those escaped persons are these

petitioners and recoveries are made at the instance of accused No.1. Accused No.1 showed accused No.4 and recoveries made at the instance of

accused No.4. In total 25 kgs., of sandal wood and chiseled pieces of sandal wood, were seized. The matter is under investigation.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that only at the instance of accused No.1, the names of these petitioners are

revealed and these petitioners were not indulged in any such acts and no any criminal antecedents against these petitioners. Accused Nos.1 and 4

from whom recoveries are made have already been enlarged on bail. Hence, these petitioners are ready to willing to abide by any conditions that may

be imposed by this Court and assist the Investigating Officer for further investigation and prays to enlarge them on bail.

5.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that these two petitioners were there at the spot

when a raid was conducted and later escaped from the spot. The Court has to take note of the quantum of the sandalwood seized at the instance of

accused No.1, who was red-handedly apprehended and the presence of these petitioners are required for further investigation. Hence, the bail cannot

be granted to them.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also

taking into note of seized 14.490 Kgs of sandalwood and 1.800 Kgs of chiseled pieces of sandal wood from the place of crime and the same was

recovered at the instance of accused No.1 and the allegations against these two petitioners, who were escaped from the spot. Having taken note of

the material available on record, there is no criminal antecedents against these petitioners. When such being the factual aspects of the case, accused

Nos.1 and 4 from whom already recovery was made and enlarged them on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., and no recovery is required at the

instance of these two petitioners. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in favour of the

petitioners. However, this Court directs the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer, assist and co-operate with the Investigating Officer

for further investigation in the matter.

7.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.8/2021-2022 of RFO

Kalladka Branch, Bantwal Forest Range, Managaluru Division, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 24(d)(e), 83, 84, 85, 86 of

Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order

and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of

the concerned Investigating Officer.

(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer,

as and when called for.

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of

three months, whichever is earlier.

(v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating

Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.