Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 671 (KAR)

Shivraj v. State of Karnataka

2014-07-21

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT R.B. BUDIHAL, J. 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 42 and 51 of the Wild Life Act, 1972 and under Section 41(d) r/w. Section 102 of Cr. P.C. and under Section 379 and 429 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 199 of 2014. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument submitted that the Sub Inspector of Police who lodged the complaint in this case is not competent person to file the complaint as per Section 55 of the said Act. He also made the submission that petitioners are not at involved in transporting the elephant ivory by putting it to their bag. It is the submission made by the learned counsel that somebody without bringing to the knowledge of the present petitioners have put the elephant ivory into their bag. Hence, he submitted that petitioners are innocent and not committed the alleged offences. He also made the submission that other two accused persons i.e. accused Nos. 3 and 4 have been granted with bail by the order of this Court. 4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that there is a recovery of elephant ivory from the possession of the present petitioner under the mahazar. He also made the submission that the matter is still under investigation and hence for the present, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. 5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced along with the petition. The petitioners have stated that, the very validity of the complaint and the competence of the complainant to file such complaint as per Section 55 of the Wild Life Act. Looking to the prosecution material, the said ivories have been seized under the mahazar. According to the case of the prosecution, nothing further is to be seized from the possession of the present petitioners who are said to be in custody from the date of arrest. Looking to the prosecution material, the said ivories have been seized under the mahazar. According to the case of the prosecution, nothing further is to be seized from the possession of the present petitioners who are said to be in custody from the date of arrest. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The other accused persons are also granted with bail and petitioners are also undertaken that they are ready to abide by any of the reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Looking to these materials, petitioners can be admitted to bail by imposing reasonable conditions. 6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 are ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 42 and 51 of the Wild Life Act, 1972 and under Section 41(d) r/w. Section 102 of Cr. P.C. and under Section 379 and 429 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 199 of 2014, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Each petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.