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.3–5Forest 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.3–5Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been enlarged on regular bail.
Source reference: p.3–5The petitioners’ anticipatory-bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected, leading them to approach the High Court
Source reference: p.3–5Issues
Whether the petitioners, accused Nos. 3 to 5, were entitled to anticipatory bail in the wildlife-offence case
Source reference: p.3–7Law Applied
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for anticipatory bail.
Source reference: p.5–7The alleged offences were under Sections 9 and 39 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Source reference: p.5–7The 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.5–7No precedent was cited.
Source reference: p.5–7Reasoning
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.5–7The Court also noted that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents and had undertaken to cooperate with the investigation.
Source reference: p.5–7On 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.5–7Holding
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.6–7Acts & 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
Original Court PDF
DODDAMADASHETTYvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
