Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2212 (KAR)

Ashok Kumar v. State Of Karnataka

2020-11-06

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2020
JUDGMENT S.Vishwajith Shetty, J. - Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. On the complaint of one Malathesh.A.M., S/o Manjunath, Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, on 04.09.2018, the High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered Crime No.117/2018 against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 86 & 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and Section 379 IPC. 3. In the complaint, it is averred that the complainant received a phone call on 04.09.2018 and he was informed that two sandalwood trees from the residential premises of Seven Ministers Quarters were cut and removed and immediately on receipt of the said information, the complainant had visited Bungalow No.6 from where the said two trees were removed and found that two sandalwood trees having girth of 32 inches and 24 inches, respectively, were cut and removed in the midnight of 04.09.2018. Based on the said complaint, the police after registering the FIR against unknown persons have continued with the investigation and during the course of investigation had arrested accused 1 to 3 and on the basis of their voluntary statement, the present petitioner was arrayed as accused no.6 and was produced before the Trial Court through body warrant. 4. The petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.172/2020 before the Court of LXII Addl. Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, under Section 439 Cr.PC to enlarge him on bail and the said petition was dismissed on 23.01.2020. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court in this petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was taken into custody on 24.05.2019 in connection with Crime No.126/2018, wherein he has been arrayed as accused no.10. Subsequently, on the basis of the alleged voluntary statement said to have been made by accused 1 to 3, the petitioner is also arrayed as accused in Crime No.117/2018 and he was produced before the Trial Court through body warrant. He further submits that admittedly there is no recovery from the petitioner and it is only on the basis of the statement made by the coaccused, he has been implicated in the present case and except Crime No.126/2018, the petitioner has not indulged in any other case and even in the said case, he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that admittedly there is no recovery from the petitioner and it is only on the basis of the statement made by the coaccused, he has been implicated in the present case and except Crime No.126/2018, the petitioner has not indulged in any other case and even in the said case, he has been falsely implicated. He also submits that accused 1 to 3 have been already enlarged on bail, and therefore, on the ground of parity, even the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is an habitual offender, and therefore, if he is enlarged on bail, he is likely to indulge in similar offences in future. He also submits that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Tamil Nadu and securing his presence would be difficult, and therefore, he prays to dismiss the bail petition. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions urged on both the sides and also perused the materials on record. 8. It is not in dispute that accused 1 to 3 have been already enlarged on bail by the Trial Court. The investigation in the case has been already completed and police have filed the charge sheet and the case is now pending before the Trial Court in C.C.No.13148/2019. The petitioner who is accused no.6 in the present case was produced before the Trial Court through body warrant after he was arrayed as accused in the present case on the basis of the alleged statements made by accused 1 to 3. Petitioner is in custody for more than a year. He has been arrayed as accused on the basis of the statements made by the co-accused and except the same, the prosecution has not produced any material to connect him to the crime. The alleged offences are neither punishable with death nor with life imprisonment. 9. The apprehension of the respondent that it would be difficult to secure the presence of the petitioner can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions on the petitioner. 10. Having taken into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is required to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. 10. Having taken into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is required to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in C.C.No.13148/2019 (Crime No.117/2018) pending on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 86 & 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and Section 379 IPC, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly; iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all future dates of hearing without fail, unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for genuine reasons; iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru City, and furnish his correct residential address along with valid address proof documents.