Failure to report a forest seizure to the competent officer supported grant of bail.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a forest-offence case.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused were transporting sandalwood on a motorcycle without authority; forest officials seized six pieces of raw sandalwood weighing about 12.105 kg, sandalwood flakes weighing about 1.8 kg, and the motorcycle

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The prosecution opposed bail, while the petitioner denied involvement and offered to comply with any conditions.

The High Court considered whether the seizure had been reported to the competent authorised officer as required by the Karnataka Forest Act

Whether the petitioner had made out grounds for regular bail despite the prima facie material alleging unauthorised sandalwood transport.

Whether the alleged failure to report the seizure to the competent authorised officer, as required by the Karnataka Forest Act, supported granting bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), governs the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The Court noted that Section 104D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 imposes a special bail requirement for the specified forest offences: the accused must satisfy the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty.

Section 62(3) requires an officer seizing property under Section 62 to report the seizure to the authorised officer, and Section 71A empowers authorised forest officers of the prescribed rank to order confiscation of seized property used in committing a forest offence.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the seizure of sandalwood from the petitioner and co-accused disclosed a prima facie case of unauthorised transport.

However, the available material did not disclose compliance with Section 62(3)’s requirement to report the seizure to the competent authorised officer.

Considering that procedural deficiency, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and the petitioner’s undertaking to comply with conditions, the Court held that bail was justified.

Bail was subject to a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, non-interference with witnesses, cooperation with the investigation, no involvement in similar offences, and fortnightly attendance before the police for six months or until filing of the final report, whichever occurred earlier.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if the conditions are violated.