Dismissed

Sri Paji Thippesh @ Thippeshappa v. State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2026CRL.P/17365/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioners were implicated in wild-life poaching cases involving seized deer meat. The Court rejected the plea due to the heinous nature of the offence and the necessity of custodial interrogation given the quantity of evidence, distinguishing it from a cited case with lesser facts.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed; no direction to release petitioners on bail.

Sri Paji Thippesh @ Thippeshappa Vs State by Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:21128 CRL.P No. 17365 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17365 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PAJI THIPPESH @ THIPPESHAPPA, 45 YEARS, SON OF BASAPPA

¶9

SRI. ANJANEYA A T 24 YEARS, SON OF THIPPESH,

¶10

SRI. MYLARI A T 24 YEARS, SON OF THIPPESH RESIDENT OF ARONAHALLI VILLAGE, UBRANI HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA D.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE BY KARNATAKA THROUGH DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, AJJAMPURA RANGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST.

¶16

NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:21128 CRL.P No. 17365 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEY ARREST IN CASE NO.WLOR 01/2025-26 U/S 2, 9, 39, 50 AND 51 OF WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT 1972 BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri. D.R. Basavarajappa, learned counsel

¶28

for the petitioners and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶29

Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

¶30

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayer:

¶31

(a) In view of the facts it is prayed that if this Hon'ble Court may kindly be leased to direct the respondent to release petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of they arrest in case No.WLOR No.01/2025-26 under Section 2, 9, 39, 50 & 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 by the respondent by the Civil Judge, JMFC, Tharikere.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:21128 CRL.P No. 17365 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

(b) To grant such other order or direction as deems with under circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶36

Petitioners are accused Nos. 5 to 7 in respect of

¶37

Crime No.WLPA.1972, WLOR No.1/2025 registered by the Forest Officer, Ajjampura Range for the offences under Sections 2, 9, 39, 50 and 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

¶38

The facts of the case are as under :

¶39

4.1 The Deputy Range Forest Officer of Ugrani

¶40

Branch, Bhadravathi Division, Bhadravathi received a credible information on 10.10.2025 that somebody had poached Sambar deer (Kadave) in Ajjampura in Boodiguppe Village near land bearing Sy.No.3 of Shivani Hobli, Ajjampura Taluk and are possessing meat of the said animal weighing about 109.6 kgs.

¶41

4.2 Based on the said information, the Deputy

¶42

Range Officer along with his sub-staff proceeded to the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:21128 CRL.P No. 17365 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

spot and noticed that some persons had assembled in a group as per the information near the land bearing Sy.No.3 of Boodiguppe Village and on seeing the Raid Party, those persons ran away from the spot.

¶47

4.3 But the raid party was successful in capturing

¶48

one person in the group and was able to seize 109.6 kgs meat of the Sambar Deer (Kadave) and registered the case.

¶49

4.4 Since there was no license, the raid party seized the same and took the said person to custody and on enquiry, the said person revealed his name as Jafar Sadiq.

¶50

4.5 On further enquiry, he revealed the names of other persons who escaped from the scene as Irfan, Mounesh, Mubarak, Paji Thippesh, Anjaneya and Mylari. Among them, petitioners are Paji Thippesh, Anjaneya and Mylari A.T., who are accused Nos.5, 6 and 7. After

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:21128 CRL.P No. 17365 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

registering the case, the investigation Agency is still investigating the matter.

¶55

4.6 In the meantime petitioners approached the District Judge, Chikakmagalur for grant of anticipatory bail in C.Misc. No.528/2025. Learned Judge has dismissed the said petition by considered Order dated 07.11.2025.

¶56

Thereafter, petitioners are before this Court in

¶57

this revision petition.

¶58

Sri. D.R. Basavarajappa, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition, contended that petitioners are no way connected with the incident and only on the basis of the statement made by first accused Irfan, present petitioners have been included as accused persons in the case by false implication and they are innocent of the offences alleged against them and therefore sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶59

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21128 CRL.P No. 17365 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

In support of his submissions, he has placed

¶62

reliance on the Order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.101096/2023 dated 14.06.2023, whereunder this Court while exercising the power vested in the Court under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, granted bail to a person who was holding three skulls and horn of two deers from the house of the petitioners therein.

¶63

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail request by contending that in the case on hand, huge quantity of the meat of sambar deer (kadave) has been seized by the Investigation Agency on the spot based on the credible information and it is the accused No.1 who has revealed the names of the present petitioners also, who are admittedly found at the place of incident and escaped after seeing the Raid Party and therefore the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary for effective investigation and to unearth the truth and thus sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:21128 CRL.P No. 17365 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

¶68

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶69

On such perusal of the material on record, offences alleged against the petitioners are heinous in nature. Further, admittedly the petitioners are FIR named accused persons.

¶70

Head of the Raid Party did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the petitioners to falsely implicate them. The person who has been apprehended by the spot namely Irfan (first accused) has admittedly revealed the names of present petitioners also who were successful in fleeing away from the spot.

¶71

Taking note of huge quantity of the meat weighing about 109.6 kgs has been seized from the spot, it could not have been the act of one person.

¶72

Therefore, prima facie , the reason for opposing the anticipatory bail that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation to unearth the truth and also

¶73

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:21128 CRL.P No. 17365 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

investigate about the involvement of the petitioners in few other crimes where the accused are not found, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court.

¶77

Further, in the case which has been relied on by the counsel for petitioners, three skulls and horns were recovered from the house.

¶78

In other words, material facts in the said case differ from the material facts in the case on hand inasmuch as in the case on hand, raw meat weighing about 109.6 kg was recovered by the head of the Raid Party on the date of raid itself. In case where this Court has granted the anticipatory bail, no such factual facts were available.

¶79

Therefore, said decision is of no avail for the petitioner to seek for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶80

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:21128 CRL.P No. 17365 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

Therefore, following order:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

Criminal Petition is dismissed .

¶85

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶86

SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Paji Thippesh @ Thippeshappa v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Paji Thippesh @ Thippeshappa v. State by 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

C. Nagaraju Vs Shivananda. a

Murali R K Vs Sri Chikkavenkatagiri P

Sri Mohammed Mohisin Vs Sri Abdul Faaz Ulla

Sri. Babu a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraja Sabhahith Vs Sri G H Arunkumar Gadikatte

Sri. M. Basavanna Vs Sri. Lakshminarasimha Prasad