K.L.PRAKASH @ KASHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPREHENDING his arrest by Napoklu Police in connection with case in Crime No.86/12 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 62, 71A and 104D of Karnataka Forest Act and Rules 144, 165, 124A of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 r/w Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has presented this petition under Section 438 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking relief of Anticipatory Bail.

(2.) THE petition is opposed by respondent-State.

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution the aforesaid case came to be registered on the basis of a complaint said to have been lodged by the Secretary Modiadden Jumma Masjid on 29.10.2012 inter alia alleging that there was Beete tree in the burial ground attached to the Masjid and the said tree has been cut and removed by some miscreants during the night of 27/28.10.12. In the said complaint he expressed suspicion against one Abbas arraigned as accused No.1 and others. On such suspicion the said Abbas was apprehended on 30.10.12. During interrogation, he is said to have made voluntary statement confessing to the crime along with few other persons. Istri Mohammed Majid Hamza was also found in the lorry at the time of apprehension of accused No.1 whose complicity was disclosed by accused No.1. Therefore, he was also apprehended and he said to have made voluntary statement about the incident of theft of Beete tree in the land of one Hamza about 5 months earlier to that date and the complicity of this petitioner in the said act. On the basis of such disclosure said to have made by accused No.4 Mohammed alias Istri Hamza, this petitioner was arraigned as one of the accused in the case as is found from the remand application dated 30.10.12 filed before the jurisdictional Court while seeking the remand of accused Nos.1 to 7 to judicial custody. In the said remand application, copy of which is produced, it has been stated that Kashi alias Prakash the present petitioner has not yet been arrested. Thus, from the above it is clear that the apprehension of the petitioner that he is likely to be arrested is well founded. His complicity is said to have been disclosed by accused No.4 in respect of another incident said to have occurred about 5 months prior to 30.10.12 in the land of one Hamza in Kumbaladata Village, in respect of which there appears to be no complaint.