The Court of the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-65), presided over by Sri A.V. Patil, I/c LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, rejected the regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3136/2024 on May 9, 2024. The court denied pre-trial release to 36-year-old Rasool (Accused No. 1) in connection with Crime No. 159/2023 (Sessions Case No. 339/2024) registered by the Subramanyanagara Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faces prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Section 379 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, which pertain to the illegal cutting, possession, and transportation of sandalwood trees.

Factual Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from an incident that occurred on August 7, 2023, at approximately 10:30 PM within the premises of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) compound, North-West-1 Sub-Division, N Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.

According to the charge sheet filed by the investigating agency, Rasool (Accused No. 1) along with Accused No. 2 illicitly trespassed into the BWSSB compound equipped with cutting tools, including an axe and a chopper. The accused cut down standing sandalwood trees, chopped the timber into portable logs, and packed them into a bag. As they attempted to flee the premises, public witnesses (CW4 to CW6) and nearby citizens apprehended Accused Nos. 1 and 2 red-handed at the spot.

The alert citizens handed over the suspects and the recovered contraband to police patrolling personnel (CW11 to CW14), who subsequently produced the accused, the seized sandalwood pieces, and the cutting weapons before the Investigating Officer (CW15). The petitioner was formally arrested on August 8, 2023, and remanded to judicial custody, where he has remained since.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Rasool (Petitioner / Accused No. 1): Aged about 36 years, son of late Sayad Sab, residing at Sayad Sab Palya, Mattigatta Post, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District, Karnataka.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri G.V. Manjunath presented several grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence and Lack of Direct Evidence: The defense contended that Rasool was innocent of the charges, had not trespassed into the BWSSB compound, and had been falsely implicated by the police. Counsel argued that there were no independent eyewitnesses establishing actual physical possession of the sandalwood logs by the petitioner.
• Non-Inclusion in Initial FIR: The defense highlighted that the petitioner’s name was not explicitly detailed in the primary complaint or initial FIR text.
• Coerced Confession Claims: Counsel argued that the alleged voluntary statements recorded by the police were fabricated at the whims of the investigating agency.
• Completion of Investigation: Since the investigating officer had completed the probe and submitted a comprehensive charge sheet (S.C. No. 339/2024), continued custodial detention was unnecessary.
• Undertaking: The petitioner expressed willingness to abide by all court-imposed conditions and offer solvent sureties for his release.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of regular bail by submitting a formal statement of objections detailing the gravity of forest offences:

• Red-Handed Apprehension: The prosecution emphasized that the petitioner was caught red-handed at the crime scene by alert members of the public while carrying stolen sandalwood logs and heavy cutting tools.
• Severe Statutory Penalties: The offences under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act carry severe statutory penalties extending up to 10 years of imprisonment.
• Habitual Offender Status: The prosecution revealed that the petitioner is a habitual offender with another criminal case pending against him for similar forest and theft offences.
• Flight Risk and Non-Local Status: Since the petitioner is a resident of Tumkur District and not Bengaluru, the state expressed serious apprehension that if enlarged on bail, he would abscond, evade trial, tamper with prosecution witnesses, and repeat similar offences.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the charge sheet materials, seizure mahazars, witness statements, and rival submissions to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

1. Application of Apex Court Guidelines

Judge A.V. Patil referred to benchmark Supreme Court rulings governing judicial discretion in bail matters:

• Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 1279/2021): The Apex Court emphasized evaluating the prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusations, severity of punishment, danger of absconding, character of the accused, and the likelihood of repeat offending.
• Prashant Singh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1202/2021): Reaffirmed that courts must assess the role of the accused, potential influence on witnesses, and flight risk when evaluating bail applications.

2. Prima Facie Case and Statutory Severity

The court observed that the charge sheet materials established a strong prima facie case demonstrating the petitioner’s active involvement in cutting and transporting sandalwood from a government facility. The court noted that the offences under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act carry severe punishments extending up to 10 years of imprisonment.

3. Habitual Offending and Flight Risk

The court took serious note of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, highlighting that he faced another pending case for similar offences. Observing that the petitioner is a resident of Tumkur District, the court held that releasing a habitual offender creates a substantial risk of flight, trial obstruction, and repeat criminal activities.

4. Concept of Liberty vs. Public Interest

The court emphasized that while individual liberty is a cherished constitutional right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of societal order. The court held that where serious allegations are supported by cogent recovery evidence, pre-trial release cannot be granted merely on abstract notions of liberty.

Final Court Order

Answering the point for consideration in the negative, the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge formally rejected the regular bail application:

The regular bail petition filed by the petitioner, Rasool (Accused No. 1), under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 159/2023 (S.C. No. 339/2024) of Subramanyanagara Police Station is hereby rejected.