ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.1998 at about 3.a.m, the respondent-Range Forest Official of Mobile Squad received a credible information about illegal transportation of sandal wood billets. When the Officials went near the house of accused No.4-Pyrejan, three persons were found carrying 25kg of sandal wood billets. When the Forest Officials enquired, the said three persons, informed that they had came to sell the sandal wood billets to accused No.4-Pyrejan. Then the officials immediately searched the house of accused No.4-Pyrejan but, he was not found. His family informed that he is not at home. The persons, who were carrying sandal wood billets were apprehended and the sandal wood properties were seized. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that accused No.4Pyrejan has been falsely implicated in the case. The bail petition filed before the Session Judge is rejected on the ground that the petitioner is absconding since longtime and there is a bar as per Section 104D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 for grant of anticipatory bail. The Police Officials are making an attempt to arrest the petitioner. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner, who is under medical treatment, will be put to hardship. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision rendered by this Court in the case of H.S.Manjunath vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1994 KAR 3302. 5. In the aforesaid decision, the point for consideration of the Hon’ble High Court was whether the grant of bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C while they were accused of offences punishable under Karnataka Forest Act, is permissible. In paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the said decision, it is held as under: “8. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in SMT.SHEIK KHASIM BI vs THE STATE, speaking through Jayachandra Reddy, J as he then was, took the view that subsection (3) of Section 438 Cr.P.C., does not in any manner restrict the power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail, but on the other hand, it only contains the procedural aspect that is necessary to give effect to the order of anticipatory bail passed under subsection (1) of Section 438 and the manner in which it could be given effect to. The Madras High Court in E.JOSEPH AND ANOTHER vs THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN, also held the view that the provisions of Section 438 can be applied with respect to offences contemplated under Customs Act, 1962 and anticipatory bail can be granted. 9. It was contended for the State that the Karnataka Forest Act contains special provisions regarding bail under Section 104D and under Section 75 of the Act and that no bail can be granted unless the procedure contained therein is followed. This was considered in the in the case of Gaffar Sab2 (supra) and it was held that the provisions of Section 104D of the Act are not a bar for grant of anticipatory bail. The provisions of Section 104D will be applicable if the person applying for bail is in custody, and, do not apply when the application is made for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending arrest”. 6. As could be seen from the records, accused Nos.1 to 3 were apprehended on the spot near the house of accused No.4Pyrejan. At the same time, the Range Forest Officials of Mobile Squad have searched the house of Parejan, but, he was not found there. The present case was registered in the year 1998. Thereafter, the charge sheet has been filed on 29.12.2018. The main contention is that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings initiated against him or the charge sheet filed. It is only after the issuance of warrant, the petitioner has come to know about the criminal case filed against him. As per the prosecution case, accused Nos.1 to 3 have brought the property of sandal wood billets for selling them to accused No.4 Pyrejan It is only on the basis of information said to have been given by accused Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4. At this stage, it is needless to make an elaborate discussion about these records. 7. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, Section 403 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is not strictly applicable to the facts of the present case. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner goes to prove the apprehension regarding arrest and detention. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner-accused-4 is likely to abscond and commit the similar offences. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner goes to prove the apprehension regarding arrest and detention. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner-accused-4 is likely to abscond and commit the similar offences. The said objections may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 8. Considering the nature of the allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the bail petition deserves to be allowed subject to certain terms and conditions: ORDER : The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the I.O. within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this bail order. On his appearance, the I.O. shall conduct interrogation. After completion of the interrogation, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court; (ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and cooperate with the investigation; (iii) He shall mark his attendance on every Monday before the I.O. till filing of the chargesheet; (iv) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.