Amashya & Ors. vs State Of Karanataka

Ravi V.Hosmani, J

Accused no.3 and 4 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) for grant of anticipatory bail in AMWL no.3/2024-25 of Sub-Regional Forest Office, Savalagi Region registered for offences punishable under Sub-sections (1), (14), (16) and (36) of Section 2 and Sections 9, 39, 49, 50 and 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (‘WPA’ for short).

Sri Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioners (accused no.3 and 4) submitted, case of prosecution is that at 11:00 a.m. on 13.09.2024, DRFO, Savalagi Range (complainant) received credible information about some persons hunting wild animal, and when he proceeding for search on Chikkapadasalagi to Naganur Main road, two persons were riding motorcycle no.KA-48/EC-8135, who were stopped, however pillion rider (accused no.2) ran away. On searching, complainant found three dead porcupines in bag belonging to motorcycle rider (accused no.1). On enquiry, he revealed name of pillion rider as Durgappa Jambayya Komari and that they had purchased said porcupines from Amashya and Krishna (accused no. 3 and 4, petitioners herein). Same was seized by drawing panchanama and AMWL no.3/2024-25 of Sub-Regional Forest Office, Savalagi Region registered for offences as mentioned above, initially arraigning only accused no.1 and 2.

It was submitted, based only on statements alleged to have been made by accused no.1 and 2 that they purchased dead porcupines from petitioners, petitioners were alleged to have committed offences alleged. It was submitted, petitioners had not committed any offences and were falsely implicated, corroborated by fact that they have no criminal antecedents. It was submitted, petitioners were law abiding citizens, owning movable and immovable properties and were permanent residents of Bagalkote and Badami respectively. Besides, none of offences alleged were punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. On said grounds, sought for grant of bail.

It was further submitted, accused no.1 from whom there was recovery of three dead porcupines was already enlarged on bail. Therefore on ground of parity also, petitioners were entitled for bail and undertook to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.

Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent - State opposed petition. It was submitted, based on information received, complainant had intercepted accused no.1 and 2. Search conducted had led to recovery of three dead porcupines, included in wild animals list. Accused no.1 had stated that same were purchased from petitioners, which would indicate, petitioners had hunted protected wild animals, and thereby committed offences alleged, which were punishable with maximum period of imprisonment of 7 years. It was submitted, since investigation was in progress, if petitioners were granted bail, they were likely to tamper evidence and threaten witnesses. It was also submitted, petitioners would be required for custodial interrogation and till completion of investigation, sought for rejection of bail.

Heard learned counsel.

From above, point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail with conditions?”

From above, petitioners who are arraigned as accused no.3 and 4 are seeking anticipatory bail in AMWL no.3/2024-25 registered by Sub-Regional Forest Office, Savalagi Region for offences punishable under Sub-sections (1), (14), (16) and (36) of Section 2 and Sections 9, 39, 49, 50 and 51 of WPA. Said offences bear maximum sentence of imprisonment of 7 years. Therefore, there is sufficient basis for apprehension of arrest of petitioners.

On prima facie consideration of material against them till date, it is seen that they are arraigned only on basis of statement of accused no.1 that he purchased dead porcupines from petitioners, which is presumed to have been hunted by them. Whereas, petitioners claimed to be innocent and law abiding citizens. Though investigation was still in progress, prosecution does not appear to have any direct incriminating material implicating petitioners, except statement of accused no.1. Though prosecution has contended grant of bail would hamper investigation, as of now there are no recoveries from petitioners nor any criminal antecedents alleged against them. Same would require consideration.

Besides, accused no.1 from whom incriminating material is recovered, is already enlarged on bail in JKD Forest.3/24-25. It is seen rejection of bail petition by learned District Judge is on ground of gravity of offence alleged and fundamental duty of every citizen under Article 51-A(g) of Constitution of India (‘CoI’), which cannot be weighed against right of petitioners under Art.21 of CoI. Hence point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Hence, following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed. It is ordered that petitioners/accused no.3 and 4 shall be enlarged on bail, in case of their arrest in AMWL no.3/2024-25 of Sub-Regional Forest Office, Savalagi Region registered for offences punishable under Sub-sections (1), (14), (16) and (36) of Section 2 and Sections 9, 39, 49, 50 and 51 of WPA, subject to following conditions:

a) Both petitioners shall appear before Investigating Officer within 15 days from date of this order and shall separately execute personal bonds for sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties each for likesum.

b) They shall appear before Investigating Officer for purpose of investigation as and when required and co-operate with investigation.

c) From date of their appearance before Investigating Officer, they shall mark their attendance before him, on every alternative Saturday, till filing of charge sheet.

d) They shall not hamper investigation or tamper with prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.

e) They shall not leave jurisdiction of above Court without prior permission, until completion of trial.

f) They shall not indulge in any criminal activities.