High Court Karnataka High Court

Shankarappa vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shankarappa vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2010
Author: Arali Nagaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CRICUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 05*" DAY OF JANUARY,_-'.'.§b 14A(:)"V-.  I.

BEFORE   

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE  A.F«{A1f._.'IDA!'§iAC3ARA:l'fl-. :'~~.. 

CRIMINAL PETITI'+.jN..1§J0.82I.I§,'2Qu§"   1.
 c/\~       
CRIMINAL VP'fixfi'TAI¢N a.(:~fi2,'2Q09
   oé/2009
    I  
1.  .
S/O Suryappa ._jLama r1i, 
Age:~--35 years,'AOcc::'Agricuiture

V RV/o Che n_i1ai,I¢i'.*Ta'nda'"," Tq: Hire kerur
_§."Dist: Haven V

  

V _  Na"ga;:»*pa Olekar
" .__V%«Agei_«4__5'~yéars, Occ: Agriculture
 R/O.GaVi3Iginkatti, Tq: Hirekerur
 DiSt:*H'averi  PETITIONERS
*~  (Common in ail the cases)

 ,   j(By Sri: Bahubaii A Danawade, Adv)

r 



AND:

The State by i-iaveri Town Police

Represented by the SPP

High Court of Karnataka  _   

Circuit Bench, Dharwad  RES'P,Oi\if_DENTf'  _
(Common in ai'i"tl_'1_e cases); 

(By Sri:P.H.G0tkhindi, HCGP)

These CrLPs are filed 'a_n'd.er Section 4'39«.of---Cr.-~P.C. 
praying to release the petitioners' on baii"in_ I"-1'e.\.':t1eri"v;Town PS
Cr.NO.182/2009 (in Cri__.P.NO.8_2_l:9,/2099), Cr.N_0.1v83/2009
(in CrI.P.No.8082/2009.) fand  , Cr';No.179/2009 (in
Cr|.P.No.8208/2009) pe'n»:1ien.g'.or;.,'t,he"-fi'ie "of Addi. JMFC for
the offences P/U/S 379 of-IPC:.'"and _-Sectjions; 86 and 87 of
Karnataka Forest"ACt.  " V. 1 

These   fforfdrders this day, the
Court made the"'foi|owi.ng':]f~,  9- * 
V """ " V '"fi~§¢4"'C(ji*~4.,V.i'ViOi\.'A"CRSER
Cri.P:.Nos.-8V2'.iS*,L_:'8.(i82:',and 8208 of 2009 are filed

under Section V_'439'v--ofA'CrV.PiC. by the same petitioner Nos.1

"""--..yand[Z' vs;-.*.}o~»iare res'p'ec'tive|y accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime

 ('(1Nee.'1829/2i0'0'9;,  (($183/2009 and 179/2009 respectively of

Hfaveri   S (Forest Squad). These petitioners are

'*._aiIeged_to have committed the same offences punishabie

 Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and

  under Section 379 of IPC. Therefore, these three petitions

"Ike

 are disposed of by this common order. ~Fi=Hs» petitions-=95 ¢"~5-flee

<:"~._x--»~V.Mv

re__~.'"'"x/
.

V””7

seriously opposed by the learned High Court Government

Pleader.

2. On perusal of the copies of FIR .

these three petitions, it could be seen ythat_~FI’R” 0″‘

I

registered in the said crime num’bers”sagai’hst’~

unknown accused. The offences~-are alleged to taken -. 2’

place on 01.08.2009, 28.08.2_Q.0:9.__a’n.d It is

also pertinent to note t–hVat.yti–1e?vj.tota’l.’jya’l’u.e of the sandal

wood pieces alleged to have been. ‘Sei2e_dé,:? the possession

:-

of the petitio.n§ers Further, in order

to connelctmtlfieiiviypetéintionerslyfwithuythlei commission of theft of
sandal woodg on Vtl’uveij~said__’daytes, the prosecution has relied
upon the allege’dVre~co’v_ery of the sandal wood piecesfrom

‘JV’«–.thev-‘p.ossesswi.on otl these petitioners on dated 13.09.2009.

…di’.<;pute that there is only one recovery

panchiana_rha'1«.V.in respect of the seizure of sandal wood

i°r,.,_"v.pieces " pertaining to the alleged theft committed on

"'Tdiffere«nt dates.

…..si-~~«~

M” V
.–/

3. Having regard to the above facts_..___and

circumstances of the case, I feel that ends of justice’~vyfoi:ji’d”

1,;s”f.4l”‘\ ,

be metkif these petitioners are granted bail *

in the respective petitions. Hence, _the..foIIowing”:’Q» ”
ORDERKi””

C’r|.P.Nos.8219, 8082 aaarsgzoaroimglaaiessem s ”

allowed. These petitioners shalt.be’=.enla’rged__.on:§ bail on

each of them furnishing’ casefia self
bond for a sum surety for the
Iikesum to tfhe__Vlea’rned Civil Judge
(3r.Dn.)_.. to the following
conditions:’-‘ _ h f

1) or indirectly tamper with the

V,._i’protsecLition..V_VVievidyence nor shall they threaten the
if witnesses.

“‘.__tAh”ei;}”‘_..gl_hall'”:co~operate with the investigating Officer
during the investigation of the case.

Sd/5
JUDGE

*bgn/-