Karnataka High Court
Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Anticipatory bail is warranted where applicants are implicated only by co-accused statements and weapons are already seized.

DODDAMADASHETTY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 09, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Anticipatory bail is warranted where applicants are implicated only by co-accused statements and weapons are already seized.. DODDAMADASHETTY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 3 to 5, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 9 and 39 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Source reference: p.3–5

Forest officers had apprehended accused Nos. 1 and 2 with two hares and items allegedly used for hunting; the petitioners were implicated based on the apprehended accused’s statements.

Source reference: p.3–5

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been enlarged on regular bail.

Source reference: p.3–5

The petitioners’ anticipatory-bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected, leading them to approach the High Court

Source reference: p.3–5
02

Issues

Whether the petitioners, accused Nos. 3 to 5, were entitled to anticipatory bail in the wildlife-offence case

Source reference: p.3–7
03

Law Applied

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for anticipatory bail.

Source reference: p.5–7

The alleged offences were under Sections 9 and 39 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Source reference: p.5–7

The Court considered the circumstances relevant to the request, including the petitioners’ lack of criminal antecedents, the seizure of the alleged hunting instruments and weapons, and their undertaking to cooperate with the investigation.

Source reference: p.5–7

No precedent was cited.

Source reference: p.5–7
04

Reasoning

The petitioners were implicated on the basis of statements made by accused Nos. 1 and 2, while the weapons and other instruments allegedly used for hunting had already been seized.

Source reference: p.5–7

The Court also noted that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents and had undertaken to cooperate with the investigation.

Source reference: p.5–7

On those facts, it considered anticipatory bail appropriate, subject to conditions ensuring the petitioners’ participation in the investigation and trial and preventing interference with witnesses or further similar offending

Source reference: p.5–7
05

Holding

The High Court allowed the petition and directed that, in the event of arrest in WLOR No. 06/2026-27, the petitioners be released on bail.

Conditions included appearing before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 each with two sureties for the like sum, attending court unless exempted, cooperating with the investigation, not tampering with prosecution witnesses, and not engaging in similar offences.

Source reference: p.6–7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

5 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 19723

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

DODDAMADASHETTYvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 09, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment