Blog

Case Title: Sannaswamy @ Thimnegowda and Others vs. State

Case Number: CRL.P No. 4323 of 2024

Dated On: 21st May, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S Rachaih

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case revolves around an incident reported on March 24, 2024, where the complainant, Smt. Akshitha K.P., received credible information about individuals cutting sandalwood trees in a coffee estate owned by Manjunatha. Upon investigation, it was found that four individuals, identified as Sannaswamy, Manjunatha, Anjaneya, and Omkara, were involved in the act. The complainant, along with her staff and witnesses, apprehended the accused at the scene. According to the complaint, the accused were caught red-handed cutting sandalwood trees without the necessary permits or licences, as mandated by the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The trees were subsequently seized and weighed, revealing that 18 to 20 kilograms of sandalwood had been cut, with an estimated worth of Rs. 1,20,000. The defence, represented by counsel Girish B. Baladare, argued that the accused were innocent coolie workers falsely implicated in the case. They emphasised that the estate owner, Manjunatha, had not filed any complaint regarding the alleged tree cutting, casting doubt on the veracity of the charges. In opposition, the State argued through its representative, Smt. Sowmya R accused No. 3 had a previous history of similar offences, the involvement of accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 in the current case suggested a pattern of criminal behaviour. Concerns were raised about the possibility of the accused committing further offences if granted bail and the potential for them to abscond. After considering the submissions from both sides and examining the details of the case, the court concluded that while accused No. 3’s bail would be denied due to his history of similar offences, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 would be granted bail. However, this bail was subject to stringent conditions, including the posting of a substantial personal bond and surety, regular reporting to the Investigating Officer, staying within the court’s jurisdiction, and refraining from threatening or tampering with witnesses.

ISSUES

1. Whether the accused individuals, identified as Sannaswamy, Manjunatha, Anjaneya, and Omkara, were indeed involved in the cutting of sandalwood trees without the necessary permits or licences, as alleged by the complainant.
2. Whether the accused were falsely implicated in the case, as claimed by the defence counsel, who argued that they were innocent coolie workers and that the estate owner, Manjunatha, had not filed any complaint regarding the alleged tree cutting.
3. Whether the previous history of similar offences by accused No. 3 should influence the bail decision for accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4, as argued by the State, which opposed bail for all the accused based on concerns about potential further offences and the likelihood of absconding if bail were granted.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offence of theft, stating that whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
2. Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963: These sections of the state forest law likely pertain to regulations regarding the cutting, transportation, and possession of forest produce such as sandalwood. They may outline the requirements for obtaining permits or licences for such activities and prescribe penalties for violations, including fines and imprisonment.
3. Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the power of the High Court and the Court of Sessions to grant bail in non-bailable offences. It provides the court with the discretion to release an accused person on bail pending trial, subject to certain conditions, if the court deems it appropriate.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Girish B. Baladare, counsel of the appellant submitted that the accused, namely Sannaswamy, Manjunatha, Anjaneya, and Omkara, were innocent and falsely implicated in the case. They asserted that the accused were merely coolie workers, earning their livelihood through manual labour at various estates in and around Chikmagalur. The defence emphasised that the estate owner, Manjunatha, had not filed any complaint regarding the alleged tree cutting, implying a lack of credible evidence supporting the prosecution’s claims. Furthermore, the defence maintained that the alleged act of cutting sandalwood trees was baseless and false. They contended that there was no substantial proof linking the accused to the crime, especially considering the absence of any complaint from the estate owner. Additionally, the defence highlighted the dependency of the accused’s families on their income from coolie work, implying that their continued detention would cause undue hardship. In summary, the defence argued for the innocence of the accused and sought their release on bail, asserting that they posed no flight risk and would abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent vehemently opposed the bail application put forth by the accused through their counsel. It was argued that accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4, named Sannaswamy, Manjunatha, Anjaneya, and Omkara respectively, were associates of accused No. 3, who had a documented history of similar offences. Accused No. 3, when previously granted bail, had allegedly continued engaging in criminal activities. The respondent contended that upon being released on bail, accused No. 3 formed an association with accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4, resulting in the commission of similar offences. This association suggested a pattern of criminal behaviour, which posed a risk to the community if bail were granted. Moreover, the respondent argued that there were significant concerns regarding the potential for the accused to commit similar offences if released on bail. It was asserted that granting bail to the accused could lead to further instances of forest-related crimes, posing a threat to the environment and public safety. The respondent emphasised that the alleged offence had been committed against the State, indicating the seriousness of the matter and the need for stringent measures to prevent recurrence. Furthermore, the respondent highlighted the possibility of the accused absconding if granted bail. Given the gravity of the charges and the potential consequences of the accused failing to appear for trial, it was argued that bail should be denied to ensure the accused’s presence throughout legal proceedings. In summary, the respondent opposed the bail application for accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 based on concerns regarding their association with a habitual offender, the risk of further offences, and the potential for absconding. These arguments were presented to persuade the court to reject the bail application and uphold the interests of justice and public safety.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

After considering the submissions from both the defence and the prosecution, the court analysed the facts of the case and the arguments presented by each party. The court noted that the complainant had received credible information about the accused individuals allegedly cutting sandalwood trees without the required permits. The accused were apprehended at the scene, and the seized trees were weighed, revealing a significant quantity of sandalwood.

The court acknowledged the defence’s contention that the accused were innocent coolie workers and emphasised the absence of a complaint from the estate owner, Manjunatha. However, the court also took note of the respondent’s argument regarding the association of accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 with a habitual offender, accused No. 3, and the potential for further offences if bail were granted.

Considering the nature of the offence and the prescribed punishment, the court concluded that while accused No. 3’s bail would be denied due to his previous history of similar offences, bail would be granted to accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4. However, this bail was subject to stringent conditions aimed at addressing the concerns raised by the prosecution.

The court ordered accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 39/2024 of Aldur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with one surety each. Additionally, several conditions were imposed, including refraining from similar offences, regular appearances before the Investigating Officer, staying within the court’s jurisdiction, and not threatening or tampering with witnesses.

In summary, the court allowed the bail application in part, granting bail to accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 while denying bail to accused No. 3. The court’s judgement aimed to balance the interests of justice with concerns regarding the potential for further offences and the accused’s compliance with bail conditions.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement