- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18317 CRL.P No. 7015 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7015 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMED MANSOOR S/O SHABBIR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: COOLIE, R/O BILLAHALLI VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT - 577 145. 2. SANAVULLA S/O SAFIVULLA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O BILLAHALLI VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT -577 145. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RFO, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213. (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.) …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN FOC NO.13/2024- 25 OF RFO, CHANNAGIRI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 24, 50, 62, 71(A), 80, 84, 86, 87 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 U/S 144,165 OF KARNATAKA FOREST RULE, 1964, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18317 CRL.P No. 7015 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking for regular bail in Crime/FOC No.13/2024-25 registered by the Channagiri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 24, 50, 62, 71(A), 80, 84, 86, 87 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and under Sections 144 and 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1964. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.03.2025, based on credible information received by the complainant, two persons were apprehended while riding a two-wheeler. Upon inquiry and inspection of the side bag of the two-wheeler, sandalwood pieces were found. As the accused did not possess any license to carry the said sandalwood, they were apprehended. A seizure was conducted and the sandalwood pieces were weighed. Approximately 4. Kg 900 grams were seized by drawing a panchanama. The investigation is still under progress. The petitioners have been - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18317 CRL.P No. 7015 of 2025 in judicial custody since 25.03.2025, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking regular bail. 3. Heard Sri Raveendra B.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Waheeda M M, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are innocent of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that, though it is alleged that the petitioners were apprehended by the respondent-police and sandalwood pieces were seized from them, the fact remains that, the police did not follow the procedure required under law at the time of arrest and seizure. 5. It is further submitted that, except the present case, no other criminal cases are pending against the petitioners. In other words, the petitioners are not habitual offenders. Hence, they may be granted bail. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders and that there are - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18317 CRL.P No. 7015 of 2025 other cases pending against them. It is further submitted that since the petitioners have committed the similar offence for the second time, it is not appropriate to grant them bail at this stage. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there may be chances of committing similar offences. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the bail petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is needless to say that, mere pendency of the similar case is not a ground to deny the bail, as the petitioners have already been enlarged bail in that case. If suitable conditions are imposed, the apprehension of the prosecution would be met in such circumstances. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that, it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners. 9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime/FOC No.13/2024-25 of the respondent – Police, pending - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18317 CRL.P No. 7015 of 2025 on the file Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Court, Channagiri, Davanagere District, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation as and when it is required till filing of the charge sheet. b) The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail. c) The petitioners shall not threaten nor tamper the prosecution witnesses. d) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court forthwith. e) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in 15 days before the respondent-Police, especially on Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till disposal of the case. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18317 CRL.P No. 7015 of 2025 f) If the petitioners have committed similar offences again, the liberty is reserved to the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail. In case, if the petitioners violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT:SK