High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

K S JAGANNATH vs STATE OF KARNTAKA

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 20 November 2017 · Citation: (2017) 11 KAR CK 0046

HON’BLE JUDGES
Budihal R.B.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=2932>Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972</a>, <a href=2932-39>Section 39</a>, <a href=2932-9>Se
CASE NUMBER
8015 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 425 words
1.

This is a petition filed by petitioner-Accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-Police to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 2(16), (20), (35), 9, 39 read with Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act registered in FOC No.7/2017.

2.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner - accused No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Accused No.2, during the course of arguments, made the submission that Accused No.1 also approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.8120/2017 and this Court has already considered the merits of the case and granted anticipatory bail in favour of Accused No.1. Hence, he submitted that similar set of allegations are made against the present petitioners also. Hence, on the ground of parity, he is also entitled to grant bail.

4.

Per contra, learned High Court Govt. Pleader opposed the petition submitting that looking to the complaint averments and the other material produced in the case, there is a prima facie case about the involvement of the petitioner-Accused No.2 in the said case. He also submitted that the alleged offences are serious in nature. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted bail.

5.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other material on record. I have also perused the order passed by this Court in respect of Accused No.1, wherein Accused No.1 has been granted anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petitioner is also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

6.

Hence, the petition is allowed. The respondentpolice are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 2(16), (20), (35), 9, 39 read with Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act registered in FOC No.7/2017, subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and have to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to co-operate with the further investigation.

iv. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.