1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8651/2021

BETWEEN

DAVID @ JAYASHANKAR G

S/O GOPAL

AGE 48 YEARS

R/AT NO 1016

C RANI SWARNAGAR K G F

BANGARPET ROBERTSON

KOLAR - 563122.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI MALLANAGOUDA H, ADVOCATES)

AND

THE STATE

MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION

BENGALURU.

REPRESENTED BY STATE SPP

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

BENGALURU - 560 001.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438

OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO

ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS

ARREST IN C.C.NO.55175/2021 ON THE FILE OF 29^TH ACMM,

BENGALURU

FOR

THE

OFFENCES

PUNISHABLE

UNDER

SECTIONS 2, 9, 39, 40, 48, 4, 50, 51, 57 OF THE WILD LIFE

PROTECTION ACT AND SEC. 420 READ WITH SEC. 34 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1

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

in C.C.No.55175/2021 pending on the file of the 29^th

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru

for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 9, 39, 40,

48, 49, 50, 51, 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act and

Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short 'IPC').

2.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

the respondent-State.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that the

complainant-Manjunath

Swamy,

Police

Sub-Inspector,

Marathahalli Police Station has lodged a complaint before

the Magistrate alleging that on 17.09.2021 at 10.20 a.m.,

when he was in the Police Station, they received a credible

information that some two persons were selling banned

ambergris at Railway Track, Munnekolal Village. The

3

complainant along with panch witnesses made decoy

operation and found that those two persons carrying bag

and

was

waiting

for

customers.

Immediately,

the

complainant along with his team apprehended those two

accused persons on the same day and seized ambergris of

8 kg 140 gm from accused Nos.2 and 3 which is worth of

more than Rs.4.00 crores as the same is prohibited for

sale. On enquiry with them, the accused persons revealed

that the same was purchased from accused No.1-this

petitioner. Based upon the said information, the Police

arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 and they said to be

remanded to the judicial custody and subsequently, they

have been granted bail by the Magistrate. Accused No.1-

this petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the hands of

Police. His bail petition came to be rejected by the learned

Sessions Judge. Hence, he is before this Court.

4.

Having heard the arguments and on perusal of

the records, of course, accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested,

articles were seized, remanded to judicial custody and

4

subsequently, they released on bail. His name was

implicated only on the statement made by the co-accused

persons and also the said articles are said to be purchased

by accused No.1. The Police filed a private complaint

before the Magistrate and in turn, the Magistrate took

cognizance and registered a case against accused Nos.1 to

3 by showing this petitioner-accused No.1 as absconding.

Though the alleged offences are non-bailable, but they are

not punishable either with death or imprisonment of life.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, by imposing certain conditions, if the anticipatory

bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would cause

for the prosecution case. Hence, the following

ORDER

The respondent – Police are directed to release the

petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest

for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 9, 39, 40,

48, 49, 50, 51, 57 of th