Irfan Vs Range Forest Officer

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH WLOR NO.01/2025-26 REGISTERED BY THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, AJJAMPURA RANGE FOR ALLEGED O/P/U/S 2,9, 39, 50 AND 51 OF THE WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972, WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIVL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TARIKERE AND THE C/C II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU HAS DISMISSED THE BAIL PETITION ON 07.11.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.528/2025.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in WLOR No.01/2025-26 registered by the Range Forest Officer, Ajjampura Range for the offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 9, 39, 50 and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that on 10.10.2025, upon receiving credible information, the RFO

¶30

of Ugrani Branch proceeded to the spot situated at Sy. No.3 of revenue land at Boodigudde Village, Shivani

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20000 CRL.P No. 3556 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Hobli, Ajjampura Taluk. The complainant has noticed a group of persons were gathered near the forest. The said group after noticing the arrival of the complainant and his team fled away from the spot. However, the team has successfully apprehended accused No.1 at the spot. It is stated that the group was distributing the meat of one wild sambar(kadave) after hunting it.

¶34

The complainant and his team seized the said meat and it was weighed, it came around 109.6 kg and the said meat was seized under the seizure mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. On the basis of the said information, the FIR came to be registered and the investigation is under progress.

¶35

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. Their presence at the scene of occurrence is seriously disputed. It is further contended that a false case

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:20000 CRL.P No. 3556 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

has been registered against them and they have been falsely implicated in this matter.

¶40

It is further submitted that the respondent has

¶41

not secured the FSL report to substantiate that it is the meat of wild sambar. Moreover, the petitioners are the permanent residents of the address stated in the cause title. They are the earning members of their respective families and they will abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶42

Per contra , the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State vehemently submitted that the meat of a wild Sambar was seized by the complainant and his team. The petitioners were distributing the said meat among themselves after having killed the animal. The offence committed by the petitioners is heinous in nature. Therefore, it is not appropriate to

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20000 CRL.P No. 3556 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

grant any relief as prayed for. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent State prays to reject the petition.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the averments of the complaint and also the mahazar, it appears from the record that, upon receiving credible information, the complainant proceeded to the spot along with his team and found accused No.1 and others were standing in the group for the purplse of distributing the meat of a Sambar (kadave) after killing it. On noticing the complainant and his team, the other accused fled from the spot. However, accused No.1 was apprehended. On the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1, the present petitioners have been arrayed as accused. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to grant them bail by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:20000 CRL.P No. 3556 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The petition is allowed.

¶52

ii) The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in WLOR No.01/2025-26 registered by the Range Forest Officer, Ajjampura Range for the offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 9, 39, 50 and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer.

¶53

iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and shall execute personal bond and also furnish surety.

¶54

iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with investigation till filing of the charge sheet.

¶55

v) The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶56

vi) The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:20000 CRL.P No. 3556 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

vii) The petitioners shall not commit any criminal cases, till disposal of the case.

¶61

In case, the petitioners violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶62

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶63

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Irfan v. Range Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan v. Range Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Junaidh Vs the State by

Sri Rajesh B N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mayappa a Nandi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Madivalappa @ Madivala @ Myadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Naveen Raj, Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Manish Man Power Agency Vs the Commissioner