Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Rajappa vs State Of Karnataka By on 30 October, 2023

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                           -1-
                                                       NC: 2023:KHC:38466
                                                   CRL.P No. 9414 of 2023




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                          BEFORE

                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                        CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9414 OF 2023

             BETWEEN:

             SRI RAJAPPA
             S/O CHINNAPPA @ CHANNABHOVI
             AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
             OCC-AGRICULTURE
             R/A 52, VEERAPURA
             DURVEGERE VILLAGE
             CHANNAGIRI TALUK
             DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
                                                             ...PETITIONER
             (BY SRI HASMATH PASHA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
                 SRI KARIAPPA N.A, ADV.)
             AND:

             STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
             DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
             UBRANI SECTION, CHANNAGIRI
Digitally
signed by    RANGE - 577 213, REPRESENTED BY
NANDINI MS   LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location:
HIGH COURT   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
OF           BANGALORE - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
                                                            ...RESPONDENT
             (BY SRI RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)

                   THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
             PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
             FOC.CR.NO.05/2023 REGISTERED BY DEPUTY RANGE FOREST
             OFFICER, URBANI SECTION, CHANNAGIRI RANGE, CHANNAGIRI
             TALUK, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 9, 39, 50 AND 51 OF
             WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT AND SECTION 24, 71-A AND 165 OF
             KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF
             PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHANNAGIRI.
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2023:KHC:38466
                                         CRL.P No. 9414 of 2023




    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

1. Accused no.1 is before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, apprehending arrest in FOC Crime No.5/2023-24 registered by the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Urbani Section, Channagiri Range, Davanagere for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 50 & 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and under Sections 24, 71(A) and 165 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.08.2023 when the complainant and his staff were on patrolling duty, at about 6.30 p.m, they saw a omni vehicle which stopped and from the said vehicle three persons got down and went towards a ditch and carried something from there and loaded the same to the vehicle. Immediately, the complainant and his staff intercepted the said vehicle and they found the carcus of a female deer inside the vehicle. One of the inmates of vehicle was allegedly apprehended by the complainant and his staff and he revealed his name as Rajappa and other two persons allegedly ran away from the spot.

-3-

NC: 2023:KHC:38466 CRL.P No. 9414 of 2023

4. According to the prosecution, accused-Rajappa/petitioner herein, thereafter had escaped from the custody, after FIR was submitted to the Court. Therefore, a separate case was registered against him in Crime No.334/2023 by Channagiri Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 224 IPC.

5. Apprehending arrest in the first case, the petitioner had filed Crl.Misc. No.1088/2023 before the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere, which was dismissed on 13.09.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the case, his bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC is maintainable. He submits that the petitioner is not in custody and for the offence under Section 224 IPC committed by him, a separate case has been registered in Crime No.334/2023, for which he would be tried separately, and therefore, there is no bar for this Court to entertain the petition.

7. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition and submits that the petitioner has escaped from the custody of the Investigation Officer after the FIR was submitted to the Court -4- NC: 2023:KHC:38466 CRL.P No. 9414 of 2023 and his conduct disentitles him the relief under Section 438 Cr.PC.

8. The material on record would go to show that on 10.08.2023 the complainant and his staff having found that three persons had shifted the carcus of a female deer into their vehicle, had intercepted their vehicle and at that time, two persons allegedly escaped from the spot. One of them was arrested and he had revealed his name as Rajappa. Thereafter, FIR was registered against three persons on the basis of the statement made by the arrested accused and the said FIR was also transferred to the jurisdictional court of Magistrate and in the said FIR, Rajappa is shown as arrested. It appears that Rajappa-petitioner herein subsequently escaped from the custody of police. Under the circumstances, FIR in Crime No.334/2023 has been registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 224 IPC.

9. Considering the fact that the material on record prima facie would go to show that the petitioner has escaped from the custody of the police, I am of the view that he is not entitled for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Though the learned Senior Counsel is justified in stating that the petition under -5- NC: 2023:KHC:38466 CRL.P No. 9414 of 2023 Section 438 Cr.PC is maintainable since the petitioner apprehends arrest in the case and is not in custody, I am of the view that the discretion of granting anticipatory bail should not be extended to a person who has escaped from the custody of the police. Under the circumstances, I decline to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

10. However, considering the nature of allegations made against the accused persons and having regard to the fact that accused nos.2 & 3 have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.P. No.9546/2023, petitioner is granted liberty to surrender before the jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail. In the event petitioner surrenders before the jurisdictional court and seeks regular bail, the said court shall consider the same on its merits and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two days from the date of surrender.

SD/-

JUDGE KK