-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6034/2014
BETWEEN:
Prakash K.C,
S/o Chacko K.C,
Aged about 37 years,
R/O Kunnathil House,
Shirady Village, Gundya Post,
Puttur Taluk 574 229.

Petitioner

(By Sri M.Arun Shyam, Adv.,)

AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Through RFO Subramanaya, D.K
Represented by its
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore 560 001.

Respondent

(By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This Crl.P is filed U/S.439 of Cr.P.C., praying to
enlarge the petitioner on bail in O.R.No.2/2014 of RFO
Subramanya, represented by P.P. Mangalore D.K, for the
offences P/U/S 24(d)(e) and 104 (A) of KARN. FOREST ACT.
This Crl.P coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:

-2-

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The

petitioner is accused No.1 in OR.No.2/2014 on the file of
Range Forest Officer, Subramanya, Dakshina Kannada, for
offences punishable under Sections 24(d), (e) and 104(A) of
the Karnataka Forest Act. He has been in judicial custody.
The bail application filed before the Court of JMFC and
Sessions Court at Puttur, have been rejected. Hence, he has
approached this Court.

2. The learned Government Pleader has opposed the

bail petition on the ground that in view of the statutory bar
under Section 104D of the Karnataka Forest Act, there is a
presumption about the involvement of this petitioner in the
alleged offence of illegally cutting and transporting the
rosewood logs from the Reserved Forest.

3. It is true that Section 104D of the Karnataka Forest

Act provides for a presumption about the involvement and

-3-

the Court can release such a person only if it is found that

there is no prima facie case about his involvement.

4. Admittedly, the case was registered on 18.7.2014

and this petitioner was apprehended on 20.8.2014. What is
forthcoming in the records is that the petitioner had
admitted the guilt and therefore, he is to be proceeded with
in accordance with law. Whether the statements stated to
have been given by accused while in the custody of forest
officials could be considered as a material under Section 27
of the Evidence Act is a matter to be considered at the time
of trial, more particularly, in the light of prohibition under
Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

Suffice to state

that substantial investigation is already over and the

petitioner has undertaken to obey any conditions, which
may be imposed. Hence, bail petition is to be allowed.

ORDER
I. The petition is allowed.
II. Petitioner, accused No.1 is ordered to be released on
bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-

-4-

with a like bond from a surety to the satisfaction of the

learned JMFC/Sessions Judge.
III. Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal
activities and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in
conducting further investigation, if it is not completed.

Sd/JUDGE

nd/-