Telangana High Court
Nunavath Gopal vs The State Of Telangana on 29 June, 2018
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
CRL.P.No.5732 OF 2018, CRL.P.No.5735 OF 2018
CRL.P.No.5739 OF 2018, CRL.P.No.5742 OF 2018
CRL.P.No.5743 OF 2018, CRL.P.No.5744 OF 2018
CRL.P.No.5750 OF 2018, CRL.P.No.5793 OF 2018
AND
CRL.P.No.5795 OF 2018
COMMON ORDER :
The respective petitioners; viz., Banoth Dheyi Singh son of Dharva Nayak of Mamidipally pikla tanda, Lingapur Mandal, Asifabad district is the sole accused in Criminal Petition No. 5735 of 2018 in Crime and Rc.No.11/JDG/OR/2017-18 of Jodeghat Forest Range now in Asifabad earlier Adilabad district, dated 14/03/2018, for the offences punishable under section 20 [1] [c]
(iii) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and section 27, 29 and 51 [1] of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 on the allegation of teak logs in Forest Compartment No. 259 of Kothapally [N] beat, they are felled illegally and liable for the offences supra.
2. Criminal Petition No. 5739 of 2018 : The petitioner/accused, Danavath Utham son of Takri of Mamidipally pikla tanda, Lingapur Mandal, Asifabad district in Crime and Rc.No.13/JDG/OR/2017-18 of Jodeghat Forest Range now in Asifabad earlier Adilabad district, dated 14/03/2018, for the offences punishable under section 20 [1] [c] (iii) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and section 27, 29 and 51 [1] of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 2 on the allegation of teak logs in Forest Compartment No. 259 of Kothapally [North] beat, they are felled illegally and liable for the offences supra.
3. Criminal Petition No. 5742 of 2018 : Banavath Devrao son of Panthulya of Mamidipally pikla tanda, Lingapur Mandal, Asifabad district in Crime and Rc.No.12/JDG/OR/2017-18 of Jodeghat Forest Range now in Asifabad earlier Adilabad district, dated 05/12/2017, for the offences punishable under section 20 [1] [c] (iii) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and section 27, 29 and 51 [1] of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 on the allegation of teak logs in Forest Compartment No. 259 of Kothapally [North] beat, they are felled illegally and liable for the offences supra
4. Criminal Petition No. 5743 of 2018 : Nunavath Gopal son of Dasram of Mamidipally pikla tanda, Lingapur Mandal, Asifabad district in Crime and Rc.No.18/JDG/OR/2017-18 of Jodeghat Forest Range now in Asifabad earlier Adilabad district, dated 05/12/2017, for the offences punishable under section 20 [1] [c] (iii) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and section 27, 29 and 51 [1] of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 on the allegation of teak logs in Forest Compartment No. 259 of Kothapally [North] beat, they are felled illegally and liable for the offences supra.
5. Criminal Petition No. 5744 of 2018 : Nunavath Vasanth Rao son of N. Bhiliya of Mamidipally pkla tanda, Lingapur Mandal, Asifabad district in Crime and Rc.No.15/JDG/OR/2017-18 of Jodeghat Forest Range, Aisfabad district, earlier Adilabad 3 district, dated 06/12/2017 for the offences punishable under section 20 [1] [c] (iii) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and section 27, 29 and 51 [1] of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 on the allegation of teak logs in Forest Compartment No. 259 of Kothapally [North] beat, they are cut and felled illegally and liable for the offences supra.
6. Criminal Petition No. 5750 of 2018 : Mudkal Ram son of Shravan of Mamdipally pkla tanda, Lingapur Mandal, Asifabad district in Crime and Rc.No. 14/JDG/OR/2017-18 of Jodeghat Forest Range now in Asifabad earlier Adilabad district, dated 05/12/2017, for the offences punishable under section 20 [1] [c]
(iii) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and section 27, 29 and 51 [1] of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 on the allegation of teak logs in S.No. 259 of Kothapally [N] beat, they are cut and felled illegally and liable for the offences supra.
7. Criminal Petition No 5795 of 2018 : Bhukya Devilal son of Gobriya of Mamdipally pikla tanda, Lingapur Mandal, Asifabad district in Crime and Rc.No.16/JDG/OR/2017-18 of Jodeghat Forest Range now in Asifabad earlier Adilabad district, dated 06/12/2017, for the offences punishable under section 20 [1] [c] (iii) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and section 27, 29 and 51 [1] of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 on the allegation of teak trees in S.No. 259 of Kothapally [N] beat, they are cut and felled illegally and liable for the offences supra.
8. Criminal Petition No. 5732 of 2018 : Banavath Kishan son of Bheema of Mamdipally pikla tanda, Lingapur Mandal, Asifabad 4 district in Crime and Rc.No. /JDG/OR/2017-18 of Jodeghat Forest Range now in Asifabad earlier Adilabad district, dated 07/12/2017, for the offences punishable under section 20 [1] [c] (ii) and (iv) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and section 27, 29 and 51 [2] of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 on the allegation of teak trees in Forest Compartment No. 255/2 of Kothapally [North] beat, they are cut and felled illegally and liable for the offences supra.
9. Criminal Petition No. 5793 of 2018 : The petitioners 1 to 8 are the accused of whom the second accused Banoth Kishan son of Bheema of Rc.No.36/OR/JDG/2017-18 of Jodeghat Forest Ranga in Asifabad earlier Adilabad district, dated 14/03/2018, for the offences punishable under section 20 [1] [c] (ii) 20 (1) (c) (iii) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and section 27 (1) and 29 read with section 51 (1-c) of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 on the allegation of teak trees in Forest Compartment No. 255/2 of Kothapally [N] beat, they are felled illegally and liable for the offences supra, is also accused in above crime filed, crime of the report dated 07/02/2017 for the offences referred supra.
10. Out of the eight petitioners/accused in the present Rc.No.36/OR/JDG/2017-18 registered for the offences self-same on 14/03/2018 shows that it is on information about illegal teak tree felling taking place, the Kothapalli North Forest Range in Forest Compartment No.255/2 beat of Kawwal Tiger Reserve when proceeded with panchas found that a road is by recollecting boulders and by removing bamboo stumps and by digging rubbish 5 with the help of a J.C.B. machine, which is length of 1.8 kilometers and width of 5 to 7 meters and when enquired, it is found the information that the accused persons 1 to 8 supra along with others of Mamdipally pikla tanda did the act by creating temporary passage for their ingress and egress was other wise unsafe for them to pass the lands belong to gold community people because of the differences between the two communities in the rival claims of lambada community to be removed from scheduled tribe and the Mamidipally pikla tanda and it speaks that the same is an offence punishable for the above penal provisions
11. The contention in all the bail applications by the counsel for the respective petitioners is that they are innocent and falsely implicated and there is no basis and they are not found by cutting or felling the trees much-less by laying the roads, leave about the arrangement made for their ingress and egress is out of fear from the gold community people attacking them if they proceed through that gold community people area as a stop gap arranged the way which is not an offence and thereby they are entitled top be concession of anticipatory bail.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions saying per se these are the forest offences, offences covered by the Wild Life Protection Act, serious in nature, depriving the natural resources and thereby the bail applications are deserve to be dismissed for and none are entitled to the concession of 6 anticipatory bail from the seriousness of the offence and the way in which they perpetrated.
13. Heard and perused.
14. So far as the forest offence under section 20 of the Act referred supra concerned, the first offence is punishable upto five years and there is a second offence upto seven years with fine and so far as the Wild Life Protection Act offence under section 51 (1-c) of the Act concerned, it is punishable upto seven years.
15. Having regard to the above and by taking consideration of these facts and for none of the offences punishable above seven years and but for Banavath Kishan, who is the sole accused in the un-numbered crime Rc.No.---/JDG/OR/2017-18, dated 07/12/2017 and second accused among eight accused in Rc.No.36/OR/JDG/2017-18 others are the first offenders and there is nothing to show that they are earlier involved in similar offences and having regard to the above the anticipatory bail application so far as Banavath Kishan in Criminal Petition No.5732 of 2018 and as second petitioner in 5793 of 2018 is dismissed and so far as the others the anticipatory bail applications are allowed, subject to the following conditions :
[1] Petitioners-accused shall within fifteen (15) days from today submit before the Forest Range Officer, Jodeghat Forest Range, Asifabad district and execute a self-bond for Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five thousand only] with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, otherwise giving liberty to the petitioners to submit 7 within said 15 days from now before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class having the jurisdiction, for taking to custody and to enlarge as above. The bond to be obtained is not only to appear before the Court pending investigation and after filing of final report in the form of charge sheet or the like for enquiry or pre-committal enquiry before said Court, but also thereafter on committal before the Court of Sessions or by virtue of any transfer of proceedings for want of jurisdiction or otherwise before any other Court and even after trial before such Court to appear before provisional or appellate Court or other superior Court - vide decision - Pre-Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur vs State of Delhi 1982[2]APLJ 43(SC); so that at stage of committal or other proceedings obtaining of fresh bond from accused and even affidavits of sureties of bonds and solvency earlier produced are ratifying and in existence and enforceable, without even insisting their further presence, serves the purpose. Such recourse quickens the proceedings at such committal or other stages without loss of time and it also to some extent complies with the requirement of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
[2] Petitioners-accused shall report before the Station House Officer, concerned on every Sunday till filing of the charge sheet and thereafter once in a month on 1st Sunday till completion of trial/enquiry between 10.00 and 11.00 AM for assurance of their availability and non-interference in any manner with the witnesses.
[3] Petitioners-accused shall not enter the area where the complainant and witnesses reside, until further orders being passed by the learned Magistrate 8 relaxing the same empowering him by virtue of this order.
[4] Petitioners-accused shall attend before the Court of law regularly in enquiry and trial without fail, if not his bail shall be cancelled forthwith, without any further order so that, the Magistrate can also issue NBW by cancelling the bail from the power under section 439 [2] Cr.P.C. delegated to the learned Magistrate by this order during pendency of proceedings before the Magistrate.
[5] Petitioners-accused shall not leave the State pending enquiry/trial without prior permission of the Court of concerned Magistrate/trial Judge.
[6] Petitioners-accused shall furnish their full address with property and Bank Account particulars and submit their passport if any, after enlargement of bail on the next hearing date before the Magistrate Court concerned (for collecting by police as part of their duty to investigate-also the means of accused and to furnish the same in the final report of investigation to enable the trial court in the event of considering the need of awarding compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. So to award from such material and evidence, apart from securing presence and obtaining of bond with sureties under section 437A Cr.P.C. etc.), failing which it is open to the learned Magistrate concerned by virtue of the power conferred by this order to cancel the bail.
[7] In the event of the police making out a case for police custody for the purpose of interrogation, the petitioners shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the further investigation remained if any, with the permission of the Magistrate concerned who can grant such police custody within 15 days from today, not exceeding 9 12 hours in the presence of a male member, subject to necessary precautions and instructions as per the constitutional bench expression of the Apex Court in guideline No.iv in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab1.
[8] The bail now granted is since a anticipatory one till end of trial (without prejudice to the right to cancel meanwhile in case of need and/or for non- compliance of conditions supra) any absence of petitioners as accused for hearing/enquiry or trial, issuance of non bailable warrant-NBW (unless cancelled before execution) and even its execution and production of accused as per the NBW; that does not tantamount to cancellation of bail including from the wording of Sec.439(2) Cr.P.C. and as such in such event no fresh bail application can be entertained. As it tantamounts to only cancellation of bail bonds earlier executed, (leave about the power of the court to issue surety notices by forfeiting bonds and for imposing penalty on the bonds forfeited); the proper course is to direct the accused to work out the remedy to pay penalty on the previous forfeited bonds as per Section 441 to 446 Cr.P.C. and to submit fresh solvency with self bond for enlarging him by release from custody on payment of penalty of the earlier bonds forfeited without need of enforcing against earlier sureties again.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in these criminal petitions are disposed of.
____________________________ DR . JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO.
29/06/2018 IsL 1 (1980)2 SCC 565 10 HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CRL.P.No.5732 OF 2018, CRL.P.No.5735 OF 2018 CRL.P.No.5739 OF 2018, CRL.P.No.5742 OF 2018 CRL.P.No.5743 OF 2018, CRL.P.No.5744 OF 2018 CRL.P.No.5750 OF 2018, CRL.P.No.5793 OF 2018 AND CRL.P.No.5795 OF 2018 [ COMMON ORDER ] Circulation No. 130 Date: 29/06/2018 Court Master : I s L