IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104602 OF 2025

(438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SHRI. GAMANNA S/O. CHANDRAPPA HEGGERI,

AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/O. RAMAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580007.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ANGADI RAJASHEKHAR HOLABASAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

(DHARWAD RANGE FOREST OFFICER, MANDIHAL)

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

Digitally signed

by SAM REEN DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

AYUB …RESPONDENT

DESHNUR

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF

CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 482 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE DHARWAD RANGE FOREST OFFICER, MANDIHAL TO ENLARGE THE PRESENT PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT ARRAYED AS ACCUSED ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY THE DHARWAD RANGE FOREST OFFICER, MANDIHAL SECTION IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 55 OF WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT 1972, IN C.C. NO.1057/2025 (PCR NO.1/2025), PENDING ON THE FILE OF II^ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD, IN ROR NO.35/2024-25 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 9, 49B, R/W SECTIONS 2(16), 39, 49A, 50, 51 OF KARNATAKA FOREST

ACT AND ETC.,.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail in CC No.1057/2025 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad, in ROR No.35/2024-25, for the offence under Sections 9, 49-B, r/w Section 2(16), 39, 49(A), 50, 51 of the Karnataka Forest Act (for brevity, ‘KFA, Act’).

Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the Deputy Range Forest Officer has filed a private complaint under Section 55 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 contending that the petitioner had stored deer meat in his house. He stated that after collecting the said deer meat, a case came to be registered against the petitioner. The respondent-police after conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

3. Heard Sri Angadi Rajashekar Holabasappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveen Y Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. A false case has been foisted against the petitioner in order to implicate him in this false case. It is further submitted that the petitioners has not at all stored any meat as stated in the complaint. Though, it is alleged that 4 kg of deer meet was seized from accused No.1 in his house bearing Sy.No.98/2 of Rampur Village, the fact remains that the said meat has not been sent for chemical analysis to find out whether it is deer meat or not. Under such circumstances the possibility of proceeding against the petitioner may not be proper. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant him anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned HCGP prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State vehemently submitted that the Authority after noticing that it is deer meat, registered the case against the petitioner. Merely because the meet was not sent for chemical analysis, that may not be the ground for grant of bail. Making such submissions, learned HCGP prays to reject the petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the private complaint, it appears from the record that the deer meat was allegedly seized by the Authority. However, it was not sent for chemical analysis as narrated. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant bail as prayed for. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed.

ii. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged