GAFFARSAB Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these cases are residents of Ankarvalli village in Chandragutti Hobli, Sorab Taluk. Cases are registered against them for offences under Sections 24, 62, 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') and S. 379, I.P.C. and FIRs are sent against them by the Range Forest Officer, Sorab to the Court of the J.M.F.C. Sirab alleging that about 644 Kgs. of Sandalwood, 6 pieces of rosewood and 7 pieces of Deodar wood were found in a portion of the residential house of the petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1395/90; 66 Kgs. of Sandalwood were found in a portion of the residential house of petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1396/90; and 32 Kgs. of Sandalwood in two gunny bags were found in a portion of the house of the petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1430/90 when their houses were searched by the Forest staff on 15-9-90. It is also alleged that the petitioners had no requisite permit to possess the said forest produce.

(2.) In view of the FIRs sent against the petitioners for the above mentioned offences, they approached the Sessions Judge, Shimoga (for short 'the Sessions Judge') with applications for grant of anticipatory bail under S. 438, Cr. P. C. by contending that they are falsely implicated and they are reasonably apprehending that they are likely to be arrested and subjected to harassment either by the forest officials or by the police. The said prayer of the petitioners was opposed by the respondent by contending that petitioners are not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail in view of the special provisions made in Section 104-D of the Act regarding bail.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge, in his separate but similar orders passed in Cr. Misc. Nos.174/90, 175/90 and 176/90 on 8-10-90 and 15-10-90, rejected the applications of the petitioners by holding that they are not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail in view of the provisions of Section 104-D of the Act as the burden is on the petitioners to show prima facie that they are not guilty of the offences alleged against them. Therefore, the petitioners have filed fresh petitions under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in this Court for the same relief of anticipatory bail.