Six accused alleged to have cut trees in reserved forest and assaulted obstructing forest officials sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the allegations were serious and petitioners were required for interrogation, answering the point negatively.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5921 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:25015 CRL.P No. 5921 of 2024
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR U., ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY HONNALLI POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS ORDERING THEIR RELEASE IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 504, 341, 353, 323, 379, 506 AND 149 OF IPC IN CR.NO.126/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HONNALI AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.126/2024 of Honnalli Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Honnalli, Davanagere District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 341, 353, 323, 379, 506, 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Deputy Forest Officer.
the petitioners and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the
following:
R E A S O N S
NC: 2024:KHC:25015 CRL.P No. 5921 of 2024
allegations. It is alleged that the petitioners have cut and removed various trees in the reserved forest area and loaded them in a Tractor. When the informant received information and gone there with other officials, the petitioners have manhandled them and they were assaulted, abused and tried to cause fatal injuries. It is alleged that petitioners have obstructed the forest officials from discharging their official duty. When such serious allegations are made against the petitioners, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and they are required for interrogation by the police. Hence, I am of the opinion that petition is liable to be dismissed.
Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
CT:bms: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30
NC
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.126/2024?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Parmeshwarappa @ Parameshappa S/o Somasundarappa
Rameshappa @ Rameshwarappa S/o Maralappa
Shekarappa S/o Nandyapap
Rudreshi alias Rudresha B S S/o Shanmukhapap
Nagaraja H alias Nagarajappa S/o Channabasappa
Naveena S/o Shekarappa
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
