IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD 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 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to enlarge petitioners on bail in Tavargera P.S. Crime No.74/2010 and C.C.No.333/2010 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kustagi for the offences punishable under Section 86 of Forest Act and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard 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 under Sections 86 and 87 of 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 bail 4 application. 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 ofa local surety who would ensure their presence ofthis 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 ofthe 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. 5 6. 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. 6 4) 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/ JUDGE Rsh