PUTTASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Petitioners 1 to 9 who have been arrayed as accused 1 to 9 in FOC No. 78 of 2009-10 of Shanivarsan the Forest range, have sought for relief of anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with the aforesaid non-bailable case registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 80 and 104-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 127-A of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.

(2.) According to the case of the prosecution, the 1st Petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 71/3, which is a coffee land situated at Nidtha Village. During the night of 13-3-2010, the 1st Petitioner along with the other Petitioners illegally cut a rosewood tree standing in the land and converted them into 21 logs with an intention to transport the same. At that time, they were caught and since the Petitioners had cut the rosewood tree standing in the land, though the said tree belonged to the Government, they have committed the aforesaid offences. According to the contents of the mahazar whereunder, the logs of rosewood tree were seized, there were 21 logs and the total measurement of the logs put together was 3.341 cubic metres. According to the prosecution, in view of the Rule 134, the tree standing on the land belonging to the 1st Petitioner, vested with the Government and the Petitioners could not have cut the said tree which had vested in the Government and thus they have committed the aforesaid offences.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that Rule 134 is applicable only if coffee land settlement of 1885 is extended to the land and since, at this stage, there are no prima facie evidence to indicate that the coffee land settlement of 1885 mentioned in Rule 134 was extended to the land in question, the said provision cannot be applicable to the present facts of the case to reject the prayer for bail. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, as per Rule 127-A, the owner of the land is entitled to cut or fell bete tree for the benefit of his personal use upto the limit of 10 cms and since the quantity of the tree cut by the Petitioners was only 3.341 cubic metre, they have not committed any offences, as such, there is no reasonable ground to believe they have committed any offence punishable under Karnataka Forest Act and since there is likelihood of they being arrested, their personal liberty is required to be protected.