Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 51 (KAR)

KALLURASETTY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2010-01-13

A.S.PACHHAPURE

body2010
ORDER The petition is filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 requesting for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending arrest for the offence punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under: The complainant-Suresh Naidu is the owner of the land bearing revision Sy. No. 37 and he has grown trees there, amongst them two were sandalwood trees. On 4-11-2009, the complainant along with Pramesh and Balaraju had gone to watch the land, when they were in the land at about 5.00 a.m. on 5-11-2009, they heard some noise and when they went there and saw 2 persons cutting the sandalwood trees. When they shouted, the said persons began to run and they chased them and apprehended. The said accused persons disclosed their names as Ranga and Rangaswamy Boodhi Padaga. It is in these circumstances, a complaint came to be filed for the above said offences. 3. The petitioner submits that he is innocent and has not committed any crime. His name does not find place in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court for grant of bail and he is entitled to the bail sought for. 4. The learned Government Pleader opposed the petition and states that the name of the petitioner was revealed during interrogation and no incriminating material is collected against the petitioner uptil now. 5. The incident is said to have been taken place on 5-11-2009 and despite lapse of 2 months, no such prima facie material against the petitioner has been collected by the investigating agency. The petitioner is other than the persons held at the spot. So, taking into consideration this fact, at this stage it cannot be said that there is prima facie material against the petitioner for the offence registered. His name also does not appear in the complaint. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case wherein the anticipatory bail is to be granted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail for a period of 2 months from today. His name also does not appear in the complaint. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case wherein the anticipatory bail is to be granted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail for a period of 2 months from today. In the event of his arrest in Crime No. 158 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act read with Section 379 of the IPC, he is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with the further following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the police concerned within 10 (ten) days from today. (ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or the material evidence and assist the investigating agency; (iii) He shall attend the police station concerned on every Sunday between 10.00 and 11.00 a.m., till the filing of the charge-sheet.