Karnataka High CourtUddesh S/O Nabab vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2011Author:Anand ByrareddyBench:Anand ByrareddyIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
              CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHAR WAD

       DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011

                              BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

            CRiMINAL PETITON No.10129/2011

BETWEEN:

1.     Uddesh, S/o. Nabab,
       Age: 48 years,

2.     Ajay, S/o. Kamal,
       Age: 22 years,

3.     Bansilal, S! Rajasingh,
       Age: 22 years,

4.     Charra, Sb. Bootala,
       Age: 20 years,

5.     Rohu, Sb. Nanne Singh,
       Age: 19 years,

       All are Rio. Bhiloori,
       Taluka Dist Kathani,
       State Madhya Pradesh,
       0cc: Business and Agriculture.             ..   .   Petitioners

(By Shri. Hegde, Neeralgi and Patil, Advocates)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,
  Tavargera Police Station,
 Kustagi,
 Rep. by S.P.P.                                     .   .Respondent
 (By Shri, Vinayak S. Kulkarni. Government Pleader)

        This Criminal Petition is tiled underSection 439of the
 Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to enlarge petitioners on
 bail in Tavargera P.S. Crime No.74/2010 and C.C.No.333/2
                                                             010
 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kustagi for
 the offences punishable underSection 86of Forest Act and 379
 of theIndian Penal Code.

      This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:

                             ORDERHeard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader.2.     The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioners claim that they are nomads and hail from

Bhi loon Taluk, Kathani District of Madhya Pradesh, when they

came to Tavagera from Bhiloori. The petitioners do have

property, houses and agricultural land in their native place, but

they do business three months in a year, while so moving

through Karnataka, they were intercepted by the Sub-Inspector

of Tavargera Police Station and their belongings were checked.
 According to the complainant, on information received, he was

waiting    near   Hulivapura   cross,   Navalahalli   village   on

01.10.2010. When the petitioners came, they were stopped and

their belongings were checked. It was alleged that the

petitioners were carrying stumps of sandalwood weighing 40

kg., on enquiry petitioners did not produce any pass or permits

and it was treated as being unauthorised possession of forest

produce and therefore, it constituted offences underSections 86and87of the Karnataka Forest Act, was committed by the

petitioners and accordingly, they were produced before the

Judicial Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody and since

then the petitioners have languished in judicial custody.3.     It is in this background, that the learned counsel

for the petitioners had approached the Court below seeking

enlargement on bail. The said application has been rejected on

the ground that the petitioners admittedly belong to Madhya

Pradesh and if they are enlarged on bail, it is most likely that

they would put themselves out of the reach of the Police and the

Investigating Authority and accordingly rejected the bail4application. The Court has also opined that the petitioners are

 from the poor strata of society and it would not be possible for

 the Police and Court to secure their presence at the time of the

trial. It is in this background, that the petitioners are before this

Court.4.   The learned counsel for the petitioners would

contend that it is unfair to deny bail to the petitioners, merely

because they are from the State of Madhya Pradesh. The

presence of the petitioners at the trial can be ensured either by

imposing strong terms and cdnditions and on the furnishing of a

local surety who would ensure their presence of this Court.5.      The learned Government Pleader on the other

hand, would vehemently oppose the petition and submits that

the trial Court was right in its view, having regard to the

admitted background of the petitioners. Enlarging them on bail

would hamper the trial. It would be impossible to secure their

presence before this Court. Notwithstanding any local surety

which may be furnished.56.     Given the value of the wood, which is stated to be

about Rs.4,000/- in the open market and the maximum

punishment capable of being imposed on the petitioners, to

deny them on bail on the ground that the petitioners are from

the State of Madhya Pradesh and that it is difficult to secure

their presence at the trial. It is an unfair contention. If this

argument applied, the jails would be filled with such persons

unjustly. Therefore, it would not be a reason to deny bail. It

would be appropriate if the petitioners are placed on terms and

enlarged on bail. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail

subject to the following conditions:1)     They shall furnish personal bonds for a sum
             of?lO,000/- each, with three solvent sureties
             for like sums, to the satisfaction of the trial
             Court.2)     They shall make themselves available to the
             Investigation Officer as and when required
             for the purposes of investigation.3)     They shall not change their ordinary place of
             residence without seeking leave of the trial
             Court.64)   They shall not seek to induce or threaten the
           prosecution witnesses.5)   They shall attend the trial Court on all dates
           of hearing without fail subject to the Court
           granting exemption for good and valid
           reason.Sd/
Rsh                                    JUDGE