Criminal Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused in a case involving illegal cutting of red sandalwood, holding the petitioner did not deserve the concession.
The criminal petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
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.
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10318 of 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioner/A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case in D.O.R.No.1/2011-12 of Divisional Forest Officer, Atmakur Range, SPSR Nellore District, registered against him and others for the offence punishable under Section 20(1)(c)(iii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, Rule 3 of the A.P. Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 379 IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This petitioner is A.3 among five accused. The crime is registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(1)(c)(iii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, Rule 3 of the A.P. Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 379 IPC, apart from it, the provisions of Biodiversity Act, 2002 and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, also apply to the facts. The averments show 50 red sandal trees were cut, which weighting 1275 kgs, more than worth of Rs.2,84,325/and the accused persons kept the said cut wood having uprooted in a well in the Government Scheme land nearby Veligonda Reserved Forest in order to transport the same
illegally and clandestinely.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused persons were not caught hold of any possession and there is no conscious possession and thereby, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. Perused the material on record. From the propensity of the crime, there is nothing to share the accusation is false within the exception to Section 438 sub Section 1 Cr.P.C., the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail as rightly dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 21.05.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.652 of 2014.
6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
___________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, 19th September 2014
mar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given the lack of conscious possession and absence of false accusation.
Whether the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. based on the established crimes.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
A.3
Respondent-State
Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
