Karnataka High Court
Sri Devegowda S.M. @ Harish vs State By on 13 June, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4916/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI DEVEGOWDA S.M. @ HARISH
SON OF LATE MARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SULUGODU VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571107. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PUNITH CHANNAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY
PERIYAPATNA POLICE STATION
MYSURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL
IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME NO. 94/2022, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 3, 25 AND 27 OF INDIAN ARMS
ACT, 1959, OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE, PENDING ON THE
2
FILE OF PRL. C.J. (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, PERIYAPATNA,
MYSURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.94/2022 registered by Periyapatna Police Station, Mysuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the forest officials found the dead body of the female elephant and also the footprints of the elephant in the land of this petitioner and suspected the role of this petitioner that this he might have shot the elephant. Hence, case has been registered.
3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dead body of the elephant was not found in the land of this petitioner and the elephant was shot in the land of this petitioner and footprints were also found. Hence, case has been registered suspecting the role of this petitioner and separate complaint is also filed under Wildlife Protection Act.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that separate complaint is filed under Wildlife Protection Act and footprints of the elephant are found in the land of this petitioner. Hence, this petitioner has been arraigned as accused.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, the allegation against this petitioner is that, in the land of this petitioner, footprints of the elephant was found and case has been registered. Hence, taking note of the gravity of the offence and no allegation is made in the complaint and only on suspicion, the case has been registered against this petitioner, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, 4 subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner- accused shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.94/2022 registered by Periyapatna Police Station, Mysuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the 5 investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.
(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST