Failure to comply with mandatory forest-seizure reporting requirements weighed in granting anticipatory bail.

The petitioner, accused No. 2, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 47/2025, registered for offences under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others entered the complainant’s house at night, restrained and threatened him, and stole approximately 100 kg of sandalwood.

The petitioner relied on his denial of the allegations and the grant of bail to accused Nos. 3 and 7; the State opposed bail, citing his alleged history of forest offences and risk of reoffending or absconding.

The petition was considered under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Section 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, as described by the Court, requires an accused seeking bail for offences under Sections 86 and 87 to satisfy the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty.

Section 62(3) requires seizure of specified forest property, including sandalwood, to be reported to the authorised officer under Section 71-A; Section 71-A provides for the authorised officer’s handling of the seized property and, where applicable, confiscation.

In considering bail, the Court also identified the nature and circumstances of the offence, the accused’s position and antecedents, risk of absconding, and risk of witness tampering as relevant factors; it noted that a bail hearing is not a mini-trial.

The Court cited no specific precedent.

The Court found a prima facie case based on the allegation that approximately 100 kg of sandalwood had been stolen and on the seizure material, including sandalwood billets recovered from accused No. 3’s motorcycle.

However, it held that the seizure had not been reported to an authorised officer of the rank contemplated by Section 71-A, as required by Section 62(3), and treated this non-compliance as relevant to the bail application.

The Court also considered that the alleged offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment and that accused Nos. 3 and 7, against whom it regarded the allegations as similar, had been granted bail.

Weighing these matters against the State’s objections, it concluded that bail was warranted, subject to conditions.

The petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the like sum, surrender to the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order, attend court hearings, refrain from tampering with witnesses or committing similar offences, and report to the police on the first Sunday of each month for six months or until the charge-sheet is filed, whichever occurred earlier.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail for breach of the conditions.