KABC010088622024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU Dated this the 9th day of May 2024 : PRESENT : Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B., I/c LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.3136/2024 PETITIONER : Rasool, S/o Late Sayad Sab, Aged about 36 years, Residing at Sayad Sab Palya, Mattigatta Post, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District. (By Sri. G.V. Manjunath, Advocate) – Vs – RESPONDENT : State by Subramanyanagara Police Station, Bengaluru. (By Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc.No.3136/2024 O R D E R The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., for his release on bail in connection with a case registered in Crime No.159/2023 (SC No.339/2024) of respondent/Police for the offences punishable u/s 379 of IPC and u/s 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act.

2. It is stated in the bail application that the

petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. The petitioner has not trespassed into the compound of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board and committed any theft. The name of the petitioner has not found in the complaint and FIR. Other accused are not known to the petitioner. He is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed while releasing him on bail. In view of filing of charge sheet, prayed to grant regular bail.

3. The learned P.P. has opposed the bail application

by filing the objections statement. According to him, IO after due investigation found that petitioner has committed the offences and hence, filed the charge sheet against him. Filing of charge sheet itself shows 3 Crl.Misc.No.3136/2024 that petitioner has committed the offence alleged in the charge sheet. Among other grounds prayed to dismiss the bail application filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard the arguments from learned Counsel for

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the materials placed on record.

5. The points that arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail as prayed in the application filed under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.?

2. What order?

6. My answer to the above points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following; R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1:- According to the prosecution on

07.08.2023 at about 10.30 p.m. accused No.1 and 2 cut the sandal wood trees situated at BWSSB compound, North-West-1 Sub-Division, N Block, Rajajinagar with the help of axe, chopper, by cutting the said sandal woods into pieces filled in a bag and when they were about to move CW4 to CW6 and other public together caught hold accused No.1 and 2 and handed over them 4 Crl.Misc.No.3136/2024 to CW11 to CW14 and CW11 to CW14 produced the accused No.1 and 2 along with sandal wood pieces before the CW15/Investigation Officer. After completion of investigation IO has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and others. The petitioner is shown as accused No.1 in the charge sheet.

8. As per the charge sheet the accused No.1 is

arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate on 08.08.2023 and since then the accused No.1 is in custody.

9. Learned Counsel for petitioner argued that, the

petitioner/accused No.1 is an innocent of the alleged offences and he has not committed said offences. He has been falsely implicated in this case. There are no eyewitnesses to show that, the petitioner was in actual physical possession of the sandal wood pieces. No prima facie case has made out against the petitioner. The voluntary statement created as per whims and fancies of the police. Petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court. Hence, prayed to grant the regular bail to the petitioner. 5 Crl.Misc.No.3136/2024

10. The Learned Public Prosecutor argued that,

respondent police have recovered the sandal wood pieces and weapons to used to cut the said sandal wood tree from the possession of petitioner. After investigation investigating officer filed the charge sheet. If petitioner is enlarged on bail he may abscond as he is not resident of Bengaluru. Hence, prays for rejection of the bail petition.

11. Before considering the arguments of both side, it is

necessary to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Cri. Appeal No.1279/2021 (Bhoopendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another) noted well settled principles to be considered while considering the bail application. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion is extracted and reproduced here under: i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence. ii) nature and gravity of the accusation. iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail. v) character, behaviour, means, position & standing of the accused; 6 Crl.Misc.No.3136/2024 vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. In another judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court of India Cri. Appeal No.1202/2021 (Prashant Singh Rajput Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another) has observed that while considering the application for bail the Court has to consider the nature of offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation or tamper with the evidence, likelihood of fleeing from justice.

12. Keeping in mind the settled principles to be

considered while deciding the bail application in the above judgments let me consider the present facts of the case. According to the prosecution on the date of incident, the petitioner and another accused with the help of public caught hold red handedly and recovered the sandal wood peace and the weapons used to commit an offence. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge sheet. From the materials collected by the I.O. prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner to commit the offence u/s 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act and 379 of IPC, which is heinous 7 Crl.Misc.No.3136/2024 in nature and if it is proved the punishment would be upto imprisonment for ten years. That apart another case is also pending against the petitioner in respect of committing similar offence.

13. No doubt liberty is one of the most precious

possessions of a citizen. But there is distinction between liberty and license. The true liberty is always hedged on all sides with reasonable restrictions to allow fellow citizens also to live and prosper in society. When there are serious allegations supported by sufficient material to raise a prima-facie case against a citizen for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, bail cannot be granted to such an accused merely on the concept of liberty.

14. It is settled principles of law that at the stage of

deciding a bail petition, this Court cannot hold a mini trial to find out merits or demerits of the case. If any such mini trial is held, it would prejudice the rights of the parties one way or other. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, in the event of conviction, it is not safe to grant bail to the petitioners. 8 Crl.Misc.No.3136/2024 Both the petitioner is resident of Tumkur. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses, he may abscond and obstruct the trial and may commit similar type of offences. Hence, it is not fit case to exercise the discretion in favor of petitioner. For the fore going reasons, I answer this point in the negative.

15. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1,

I proceed to pass the following; O R D E R The regular bail petition filed by petitioner u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on Computer, typed by her, taken print out, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 9th day of May 2024) (A.V.PATIL) I/c LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru City.