Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 619 (KAR)

Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka

2010-05-20

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, petitioners 1 to 9 who have been arrayed as accused 1 to 9 in FOC No.78 of 2009-10 of Shanivarsan the Forest range, have sought for relief of anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with the aforesaid non-bailable case registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 80 and 104-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 127-A of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the 1st petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.71/3, which is a coffee land situated at Nidtha Village. During the night of 13-3-2010, the 1st petitioner along with the other petitioners illegally cut a rosewood tree standing in the land and converted them into 21 logs with an intention to transport the same. At that time, they were caught and since the petitioners had cut the rosewood tree standing in the land, though the said tree belonged to the Government, they have committed the aforesaid offences. According to the contents of the mahazar whereunder, the logs of rosewood tree were seized, there were 21 logs and the total measurement of the logs put together was 3.341 cubic metres. According to the prosecution, in view of the Rule 134, the tree standing on the land belonging to the 1st petitioner, vested with the Government and the petitioners could not have cut the said tree which had vested in the Government and thus they have committed the aforesaid offences. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that Rule 134 is applicable only if coffee land settlement of 1885 is extended to the land and since, at this stage, there are no prima facie evidence to indicate that the coffee land settlement of 1885 mentioned in Rule 134 was extended to the land in question, the said provision cannot be applicable to the present facts of the case to reject the prayer for bail. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, as per Rule 127-A, the owner of the land is entitled to cut or fell bete tree for the benefit of his personal use upto the limit of 10 cms and since the quantity of the tree cut by the petitioners was only 3.341 cubic metre, they have not committed any offences, as such, there is no reasonable ground to believe they have committed any offence punishable under Karnataka Forest Act and since there is likelihood of they being arrested, their personal liberty is required to be protected. 4. Perusal of the contents of the mahazar said to have been drawn by the forest officials on 14-3-2010, in the land bearing Sy.No.71/3 in possession and occupation of the 1st petitioner indicates that the standing bete tree in the said land was cut into 21 logs. From this it is clear that the logs which were found in the land of the 1st petitioner belonged to the tree which was standing in the said land and the total quantity of the logs was 3.341 cubic metre. As per Rule 127-A, the owner of the tree is entitled to cut and fell bete tree for the benefit of personal use upto the limit of 10 cms. No doubt, Rule 134 indicates that the trees described therein, and standing in the land to which coffee land settlement of 1885 have been extended vests with the Government. In that event, the owner of the land is not entitled to cut or fell any of such trees. At this stage, there are no materials to indicate that the coffee land settlement of 1885 has been extended to the land in question where the tree was standing. 5. Therefore, at this stage, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of any of the offences alleged. Admittedly, non-bailable case has been registered against these petitioners. Therefore, their apprehension that they are likely to be arrested is well-founded. Under these circumstances, the personal liberty of the petitioners is required to be protected by means of an order of anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Admittedly, non-bailable case has been registered against these petitioners. Therefore, their apprehension that they are likely to be arrested is well-founded. Under these circumstances, the personal liberty of the petitioners is required to be protected by means of an order of anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in connection with FOC No. 78 of 2009-10, subject to each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O. and subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (i) Petitioners shall not indulge themselves in any act similar to the one alleged against them. (ii) Petitioners shall appear before the I.O. within two weeks from today and upon such appearance, the I.O. shall release them on bail as stated above. Within two weeks from the date of such release, the petitioners shall approach the jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail. (iii) If petitioners approach the jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail with the aforesaid period, they shall have the benefit of this order till the disposal of the application for bail.