Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1280 (KAR)

Yallappa Yamanappa Halab v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-30

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok G.Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Alnavar Range Forest Crime No.1/2018-2019 for the of fence punishable under Sections 24, 84 and 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ( in C.C.No.1615 of 2019 on the file ofII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II Court, Dharwad) . 2. The facts brief ly stated are that on the complaint dated 14.10.2018 filed by the Apiculture Assistant in Horticulture Department Haliyal (Jenu Krishi Sahayakaru), the Range Forest Officer, Haliyal Range, registered a case at F.O.C.No.1/2018-2019. The allegations are that on 13.10.2018 night hours three sandalwood trees were cut by unknown persons and the offenders have taken away some portions of the sandalwood trees. On registering the case Range Forest Of ficer, Alnavar has conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested on 23.05.2019 even though they were granted bailin three other criminal cases by the Sessions Court Sirsi, In connection with other cases regarding theft of sandalwood they were not released. The bail petitions filed before the Principal Sessions Court Dharwad have been rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP. Perused the charge sheet records. 4. It is submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in connection with some other criminal cases registered under forest offences these three accused were arrested on 23.05.2019 in Joida Police Station Crime Nos.41 and 42 of 2019. Thereafter, the investigating officer had approached the JMFC-II Court, Dharwad for seeking body warrant to interrogate the accused Nos.1 to 3. In pursuance of the order passed by the JMFC-II Court, Dharwad these accused by taken to custody and their confession statements have been recorded. On the basis of the information said to have been disclosed by them in their voluntary/confession statements they have been arrayed as accused and charge sheet has been filed. There is no convincing evidence to connect these accused with the alleged offences. The investigation is completed as such their custodialinterrogation is not necessary. Due to the detention these accused have been put to great hardship. 5. Per Contra, the learned HCGP submitted that these accused Nos.1 to 3 are the habitual of fenders they are also involved in two other forest of fences. The investigation is completed as such their custodialinterrogation is not necessary. Due to the detention these accused have been put to great hardship. 5. Per Contra, the learned HCGP submitted that these accused Nos.1 to 3 are the habitual of fenders they are also involved in two other forest of fences. In the event of granting bail these accused are likely to commit similar of fences and tamper the prosecution witnesses. As such there are no valid grounds for granting bail. 6. As could be seen from the prosecution records, initially the case was registered at F.O.C. No.1/2018-19 (Alnavar Range Forest) regarding theft of three sandalwood trees in the premises of Horticulture office, Alnavar against the unknown persons. Thereafter, investigating of ficer on the basis of same information collected by him sought for body warrant from JMFC-II Court, Dharwad to take accused Nos.1 to 3 into custody for interrogation. Admittedly, these accused Nos.1 to 3 were in Judicial Custody in connection with other criminal cases registered for commission of the various offences. On the basis of information disclosed in the voluntary/confession statements given by the accused Nos.1 to 3, they have been arrayed as accused in F.O.C.No.1/2018-19. In earlier two criminal cases i.e., Joida Police Station Crime Nos. 41 and 42 of 2019, the Sessions Court has granted bai l subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, the bail petitions filed by these accused in Alnavar Range Forest Crime No.1 of 2018-19 (Crl .Misc.Nos.794 and 899 of 2019) before the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad have been rejected. 7. In a decision in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttara Pradesh and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under : "A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminallaw where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some speci fic of fences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other of fences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bailis the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bailis the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society." 8. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are : "( i ) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had commi tted the of fence; ( ii ) nature and gravi ty of the charge : ( iii ) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; ( iv) danger of the accused absconding or f leeing, i f released on bail ; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi ) likelihood of the of fence being repeated ; (vii ) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with ; and (viii ) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail . While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail , if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused." 9. The poverty or the indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor to be considered while granting bail. But discretion to grant or refuse the bail must be exercised judicially and in a humane manner. 10. In the present case, no personal recovery has been done from the accused persons, but only on the basis of the information said to have been disclosed by the accused persons, they have been arrayed as accused. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise the allegations made against the accused all these matters shall have to be dealt with trail Judge. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise the allegations made against the accused all these matters shall have to be dealt with trail Judge. No grounds are made out by the prosecution to show that their custodialinterrogation is necessary for recovery of stolen property namely the sandalwood. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail the accused are likely to tamper or the threaten the prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail . Hence, I pass the following : ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. , is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be released on bailin connection with Crime No1/2018-19 of Alnavar Range Forest (C.C.No.1615 of 2019 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Dharwad) , subject to following conditions : 1. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court/ Committal Court. 2. The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. 3. The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court/Session court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause. 4. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court/Sessions Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case. 5. The petitioners shall mark their attendance on every Sunday between 10.00 am to 5.00 p.m. before the concerned Police/Forest Of fice without fail till conclusion of the trial . The learned trial Court shall decide the criminal cases in accordance with law without being inf luenced by any of the observations made in this order.