1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8417 /2021

BETWEEN:

ASHWATH KUMAR,

S/O GANGADHARA @GANGADHARA ACHARI

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

R/AT HANCHINAMANE

VARKATE VILLAGE

HONNEKUDIGE POST

N.R.PURA TALUK

CHICKAMAGALUU DISTRICT-577 134.

..PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR B.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

STATE BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER,

CHIKKAAGRAHARA

REP BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,

AMBEDKAR BEEDI,

BENGALURU-560001.

..RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION

438

OF

CR.P.C.

PRAYING

TO

GRANT

ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTING

THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN FOC.NO.10/2020-21

OF THE RESPONDENT PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL

JUDGE AND JMFC COURT N.R.PURA (NARASIMHARAJA

PURA) TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTWITH IN

THE

EVENT

OF

HIS

ARREST

IN

THE

ABOVE

FOC.NO.10/2020-21 IMPOSING ANY CONDITION.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR

ORDERS,

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.2

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory

bail in FOC.No.10/2020-21 registered by Range Forest

Officer, Chikkaagrahara for the offences punishable

under Sections 9, 39, 44, 49(a)(b), 51, 52 of the Wild

Life Protection Act, 1972 and Sections 24, 50, 50(2b),

50(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 144,

165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.

3

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on

24.10.2020, after receiving credible information that

the accused persons had killed a tiger cub and are

trying to bury it, the forest officer along with his staff

apprehended accused Nos.1 and 3 at Varkate Village,

Kusgal Reserve Forest, near Chikkaagrahara. Accused

Nos.1 and 3 were found in possession of the nails, skin,

and teeth of the tiger cub. After arresting accused

Nos.1 and 3, they revealed the name of the petitioner-

accused No.2 who went out to sell the skin of the tiger.

Subsequently, accused Nos.1 and 3 have been

remanded to judicial custody. The respondent-RFO

was making a hectic effort to arrest the petitioner-

accused No.2, hence, he approached the Sessions

4

Judge for grant of bail, which came to be rejected.

Hence, he is before this Court.

4. Upon hearing the arguments of learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the

respondent-State, and upon perusing the records, it is

revealed that accused Nos.1 and 3 were caught red-

handed. The forest officers seized the nails, teeth, and

skin of the tiger cub. However, the further allegation

against the petitioner is that he has taken the skin of

the tiger cub for selling. The learned counsel submits

that once the skin is already seized by the forest

officers, the question of taking out for selling by the

petitioner does not arise. Accused Nos.1 and 3 have

already been granted bail by the trial Court under

Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. for default bail. The allegation

against the petitioner is that he has gone to sell the

skin of a tiger cub. At this stage, it cannot be said that

there is prima facie material placed on record against

5

the petitioner. Therefore, without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing

stringent conditions, if petitioner/accused No.2 is

granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case

of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

The

respondent-RFO

is

directed

to

release

petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in the event of their

arrest in FOC.No.10/2020-21 registered by Range

Forest

Officer,

Chikkaagrahara

for

the

offences

punishable under Sections 9, 39, 44, 49(