Allowed

Sadashiva Thudu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2021CRL.P/1075/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed bail petitions filed by two accused persons in a case involving possession of carved ivory under the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Karnataka Forest Act, noting that offences were non-bailable but not punishable with life imprisonment and no specific overt act was attributed to them at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh each with two sureties, conditions against tampering with witnesses, committing similar offences, leaving jurisdiction,

Sadashiva Thudu Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1075 OF 2021 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.937 OF 2021

¶7

IN CRL.P. NO.1075/2021:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SADASHIVA THUDU S/O. KASHU THUDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.1, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 046.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI GIREESHA J.T., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, FOREST MOBILE SQUAD, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, H.C.G.P.)

¶16

¶17

IN CRL.P. NO.937/2021:

¶18

BETWEEN:

¶19

P.C. PURUSHOTHAMA S/O. P.D. CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHANIVARASANTHE MAIN ROAD, SOMWARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 235.

¶20

... PETITIONER

¶21

(BY SRI MOHAN MAHABALESHWAR BHAT, ADV.)

¶22

AND:

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, FOREST MOBILE SQUAD, BENGALURU.

¶24

... RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, H.C.G.P.)

¶26

¶27

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN FOC NO.24/2020-21 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENTRANGE FOREST OFFICER, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 2(16)(32), 9, 39, 44 AND 49B READ WITH SECTIONS 50, 51, 52, 55, 56 AND 57 OF THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 AND UNDER SECTIONS 24J AND 2(6)(7)(b)(iii) READ WITH SECTION 62 OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963.

¶28

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Criminal Petition No.937 of 2021 is filed by accused No.6 and Criminal Petition No.1075 of 2021 is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting regular bail in FOC No.24/2020-21 registered by the Forest Range Officer, Forest Mobile Squad, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 2(16)(32), 9, 39, 44 and 49B read with Sections 50, 51, 52, 55, 56 and 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Sections 24J and 2(6)(7)(b)(iii) read with Section 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

¶32

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶33

The case of the prosecution is that, on 8-1-2021 at about 10.00 a.m., on receiving credible information and after obtaining the search warrant, the Range Forest

¶34

¶35

Officer and his staff conducted a raid in house No.120, situated at 3^rd Cross, 1^st Main, BDA Colony, Mariyyanapalya, Bengaluru, belonging to accused No.3 and seized a carved ivory weighing about 2.6 kgs. and with its wooden frame weighing about 3.3 kgs. It is alleged that accused persons having illegally procured the said carved ivory were attempting to sell the same. Accused Nos.1 to 6 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Accused Nos.1 and 6 approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, these petitions.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioners are in custody for more than sixty-eight days. Charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Accused No.5 has been granted bail by a Co-

¶37

¶38

ordinate Bench of this Court and on the ground of parity, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶39

Per contra , the learned High Court Government

¶40

Pleader has objected the bail petitions and contended that the petitioners have committed heinous offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as well under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. If the petitioners are granted bail, they may abscond. Hence, she prayed for rejecting the petitions.

¶41

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, the Forest Range Officer, Forest Mobile Squad, Bengaluru, seized the carved ivory weighting about 2.6 kgs. and with its wooden frame weighing about 3.3 kgs. from accused Nos.1 to 6 and they have been arrested and sent to judicial custody on 8-1-2021. The petitioners are in custody for more than sixty-eight days. Though the offences are non-bailable, but they are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Accused

¶42

¶43

No.5, who stands in the similar footing of the petitioners, has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1285 of 2021 on 26-2-2021. Accused No.1 has given the said carved ivory to accused Nos.2 and 3 to sell and the said accused were trying to sell it through accused Nos.4 to 6. There is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioners and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, if bail is granted to the petitioners by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would cause to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

Criminal petition is allowed . The jurisdictional Court is directed to release the petitioners on bail in FOC No.24/2020-21 registered by the Forest Range Officer, Forest Mobile Squad, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, under Sections 2(16)(32), 9, 39, 44 and 49B read with Sections 50, 51, 52, 55, 56 and 57 of the Wild Life

¶46

¶47

(Protection) Act, 1972 and Sections 24J and 2(6)(7)(b)(iii) read with Section 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, subject to the following conditions:

¶48

i) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶49

ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; iii) Petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offences;

¶50

iv) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the trial Court; and

¶51

¶52

v) Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

kvk

Sadashiva Thudu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiva Thudu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitharam Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raju C C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. H. Puttahanumaiah @ Praveen Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nanjundaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Yashwanth Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sadiq Vs State by Wilson Garden Police Station