ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner-accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) to grant bail in favour of the petitioner in connection with FOC No.220/2024-25 for the offences punishable under Sections 24(e), 84, 86, 87, 62 and 71(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Rule 144 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 and Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 16.03.2025, the first informant viz., Forest Officer, Dundasi Forest received information about transportation of sandalwood, went in search of illegal transportation of sandalwood and found three persons carrying sandalwood. Therefore, he tried to apprehend them. However, two of them escaped and one of them was apprehended along with nine pieces of sandalwood weighing 74.530 kg. and two wheeler etc. Hence, the Forest Officer brought accused No.3 and the seized properties to the office of Forest Range, Dundasi and furnished information. This led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation. During the course of investigation, on the statement of accused No.3, the names of accused Nos.1 and 2 were revealed. Apprehending the arrest by the Police, the petitioner – accused No.2 has filed this petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence and he is a law abiding citizen. The RFO has not complied Sections 62(3) and 71-A of the said Act; the petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for grant of bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender; he has been involved in forest offences and the Investigating Officer has seized in all 74.530 kg. of sandalwood and it has caused loss to the State ex-chequer. If he is released on bail, he may commit similar offences and he may flee away from justice. Thus, the learned HCGP prayed for rejection of bail petition. 6. of sandalwood and it has caused loss to the State ex-chequer. If he is released on bail, he may commit similar offences and he may flee away from justice. Thus, the learned HCGP prayed for rejection of bail petition. 6. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that on 16.03.2025, the Forest Officer, Dundasi Forest seized 9 pieces of sandalwood billets weighing 74.530 kg, from the possession of accused No.3, when he was transporting the same on his motorcycle without any license. While the Forest Officer was searching the vehicle, accused No.3 was found with said sandalwood billets along with the motorcycle. As per the contents of FIR, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed theft of sandalwood trees from the forest area. 7. Section 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act is a special provision regulating bail matters in respect of offences under the Karnataka Forest Act. As per said Section the accused seeking bail for the offences committed under Sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act, the accused has to satisfy the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of the said offences. In the instant case, accused No.3 was traveling on the motorcycle and as per the allegation he was transporting the sandalwood billets weighing 74.530 Kgs., in his motorcycle with having knowledge and conscious of possession of sandalwood billets in his Car. Therefore, there is prima facie case against the accused persons of the offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Forest Act. A perusal of the complaint and seizure panchnama reveals that the forest guard seized the sandalwood billets from the motorcycle of accused No.3. 8. Therefore, there is prima facie case against the accused persons of the offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Forest Act. A perusal of the complaint and seizure panchnama reveals that the forest guard seized the sandalwood billets from the motorcycle of accused No.3. 8. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to extract Section 62(3) of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, which reads as under: "62(3) Every officer seizing any property under this section 1 [x x x] shall, as soon as may be [make a report of such seizure,— (a) where the offence on account of which the seizure has been made is in respect of timber, ivory, [gulmavu (machilus macrantha) bark, dalchini bark, halmaddi (exudation of ailanthus malabaricum), canes], firewood or charcoal which is the property of the State Government or in respect of sandalwood, to the concerned authorised Officer under section 71A and (b) in other cases, to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made;]" 9. Further, Section 71-A of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 reads as under: "71A. Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter 2 [or in any other law] where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber, [ivory, [gulmavu (machilus marantha) bark, dalchini bark, Halmaddi (exudation of ailantus malabricum), canes], firewood and charcoal which is the property of the State Government or in respect of sandalwood]3 , the officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of section 62 shall, without any unreasonable delay produce it, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence, before an officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf by notification in the official Gazette, not being below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer). (2) Where an authorized officer seizes under sub-section (1) of section 62 any timber, [ivory, firewood [gulmavu (machilus marantha) bark, dalchini bark, halmaddi (exudation of ailantus malabricum), canes] and charcoal which is the property of the State Government or any sandalwood]1, or where any such property is produced before an authorised officer under sub-section (1) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of such property, such authorised officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such forest offence, order confiscation of the propriety so seized together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence. (3) (a) Where the authorised officer, after passing an order of confiscation under sub-section (2), is of the opinion that it is expedient in the 386 Forest public interest so to do, he may, order the confiscated property or any part thereof to be sold by public auction. (b) Where any confiscated property is sold, as aforesaid, the proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall where the order of confiscation made under section 71A is set aside or annulled by an order under sections 71C or 71D, be paid to the owner thereof or to the person from whom it was seized as may be specified in such order." 10. Sections 62(3) and 71-A of Karnataka Forest Act mandate that every Officer seizing any property under these Sections shall make a report of such seizure to the concerned Officer under Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act. For the purpose of Section 71-A, the Officer must not be below the rank of Assistant Conservative Officer of Forest. In the instant case the forest officer or forest guard has not submitted his report to the Assistant Conservative of Forest and therefore, the Investigating Officer has not complied with the mandatory requirement as stated under Section 62(3) and 71-A of the Act. 11. It is well established principle of law that while considering a bail application, the Court has to consider the nature of offence, circumstances in which the offence was committed the position and the status of the petitioner, likelihood of the accused fleeing away from justice, tampering of witnesses, character and antecedent of the accused. 11. It is well established principle of law that while considering a bail application, the Court has to consider the nature of offence, circumstances in which the offence was committed the position and the status of the petitioner, likelihood of the accused fleeing away from justice, tampering of witnesses, character and antecedent of the accused. Further, the law is well settled that, while disposing off the bail petitions, the Court need not scan the prosecution papers and hold a mini trial. Keeping these factors in mind, the petitioner is entitled for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner – accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest by the respondent – Police in FOC Crime No.20/2024-2025 on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the S.H.O or the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the S.H.O/I.O. within a period of 15 days from today; ii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the S.H.O/I.O. on 1 st day of every Sunday between 10:00 a.m., to 05:00 p.m., for a period of six months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier. iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with investigating agency till conclusion of the investigation. v) The petitioner shall be regular in attendance before the trial Court. vi) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences. Violation of any of these conditions would entail for cancellation of bail.