Case No. – 100784 OF 2019
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH: Hon’ble B.A. Patil J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 3 June 2019
RELEVANT ACTS/SECTIONS
Section 9 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Prohibition for hunting)
Section 39 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Wild animals, etc., to be Government property)
Section 48(A) of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Purchase of animals, etc., by the licensee)
Section 50(C) of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Arrest of the accused is an integral part of the investigation of wildlife crimes)
Section 51 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Penalties)
Section 3 of Arms Act 1959 (License for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition)
Section 20 of Arms Act 1959 (Arrest of persons conveying arms, etc., under suspicious circumstances)
Section 25 of Arms Act 1959 (Punishment for certain offences)
Section 27 of Arms Act 1959 (Punishment for using Arms, etc.)
Section 38 of Arms Act 1959 (Offences to be cognizable)
Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973 (Anticipatory bail)
BACKSTORY
This appeal had been filled by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., looking to discharge them on anticipatory bail in Forest Crime No.37/2018-19 of Sub-division Shiralli, Bhatkal for the offence culpable under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and segment 9, 39, 48a, 50(c) and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and area 3, 20, 25, 27 and 38 of Indian Arms Act, 1959.
The substance of the instance of the complainant was that on 11.03.2019, candidates accused intruded into the reserved forest for Kaikani at Survey No.757 and without there being any substantial and compelling permit they were having guns and they killed a spotted deer and evacuated its flush and conveyed it in four plastic sacks. At the point when they were going to escape on their vehicles, the forest authorities reached the spot because an informer informs them about this incidence.
The learned counsel presented that these petitioners accused were not associated with the supposed offence and they were absent at the spot of the incident. They had been dishonestly implicated in the supposed wrongdoing. He further presented that the flush of the deer had been seized from the owner of both the two accused and there was no material to demonstrated that these petitioners had utilized prohibited arms to pull in the Arms Act. He further presented that the supposed offences were not culpable with capital punishment or imprisonment for life. It was presented that both accused had already been enlarged on bail. On the ground of equality, the current candidates accused may likewise be discharged on bail. It was additionally presented that the petitioners were prepared to comply with all the conditions forced by this Court and were prepared to offer the guarantee as per the general inclination of this Court. On these grounds implored permit the request and discharge them on anticipatory bail.
JUDGEMENT
The hon’ble court held that “It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release the petitioners-accused”. Hence, the petition was dismissed.