KABC010088852024
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2024
PRESENT
Sri. B.G. Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
petitioner:
Suman Krishnan,
S/o Krishnan,
Aged abou 39 years,
R/at:No.5/13, 1st Cross,
2nd Main Road,
Nanjappa Layout,
Bengaluru – 560030.
(Accused No.3)
(By Sri.Santhosh N. – Advocate)
-V/S-
Respondent :
State of Karnataka
By Intelligence Officer,
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
2
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Bengaluru Zonal Unit.
(Represented by Learned Spl. Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner u/Sec.439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail to him in Cr.No.22/2024
(F.No.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-21/INT-NIL)/2024 of Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence for the offences punishable u/Sec.9, 39,
40, 42A, 49A, 49B and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972,
pending on the file of learned Special Court for Economic
Offences at Bengaluru.
2.
Police
It is stated in the petition that the respondent
have
registered
a
case
in
(F.No.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-21/INT-NIL)/2024
Cr.No.22/2024
against
the
petitioner and others alleging the offences punishable u/Sec.9,
39, 40, 42A, 49A, 49B and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act
1972. The respondent police during the course of investigation
of the case have arrested the petitioner on 05.03.2024 and
produced him before the learned Magistrate on 06.03.2024.
The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by Learned
Magistrate. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner
3
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
is innocent and he has not involved in the commission of
alleged offences. No incriminating materials forth coming as
against the petitioner. The petitioner is arrayed as accused as
per the voluntary statements of Accused No.1 and 2 and those
statements are not admissible under the Evidence Act. No
incriminatory material is recovered from the possession of the
petitioner. Even the vehicles used for commission of offence
are also not seized by the respondent. The petitioner is from
reputed family and he is having deep roots in the society. The
mother of the petitioner is suffering from old ailments and he
has to take care of his mother. The petitioner is permanent
resident of address mentioned in the cause title. There are no
antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to
abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this court for
his enlargement on bail and he is ready to furnish suitable
surety for his appearance before the court. Hence, the
petitioner has prayed to allow the petition.
3.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor has filed
the objection to the petition by contending that the petition filed
by the petitioner u/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It is
further stated in the objection that the petitioner and coaccused were in frequent contact with each other and who
4
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
have been held by respondent DRI redhandedly while they
were making attempt for sale of 2 Ivory Tusks worth of Rs.2.5
crores. There lies a prima case against the petitioner. The
petitioner was found in possession of 2 Ivory Tusks which are
found under Part ‘A’ of Schedule 1 at Sl.No.83 of Wild Life
Protection Act, 1972. It is further stated in the objection that
the statement of the petitioner was recorded and he has
admitted the commission of the alleged offences. The alleged
offences are Economic offences not only victimize individuals
with pecuniary loss, but also have serious repercussions on
the national economy. It is further stated in the objection that
the investigation is not yet completed. Certain other persons
who have abetted in the said offence are to be traced and
interrogated. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may
escape the process of law, Scuttle the investigation and
destroy the evidence. On these among other grounds, the
learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has prayed to reject the petition
filed by the petitioner.
4. Heard the arguments of learned Spl.Public Prosecutor
and learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned SPP has
filed his written arguments. Perused the petition, objection,
written arguments, citations and other materials on record.

Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
5
5. Having done so, the following points will arise for my
consideration:
(1) Whether the petitioner has made
out grounds for granting bail
u/s.439 of Cr.P.C.?
(2) What order?
6.

My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1
..

In the Affirmative
(2) Point No.2
..

As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:- The respondent authority has
registered a case in Cr.No.22/2024 (F.No.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ21/INT-NIL)/2024 against one Muneer Basha and others
alleging the commission of offences punishable u/Sec.9, 39,
40, 42A, 49A, 49B and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972,
on the basis of complaint given by the Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bengaluru zonal Unit.
The petitioner has produced the certified copy of the
application for remand, certified copy of orders in Cr.No.22/24
pending on the file of learned Spl. Court for Economic
6
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
Offences, Bengaluru. The petitioner is shown as accused No.3
in the remand application.
8. It is alleged in the remand application that, specific
intelligence was gathered that a gang is involved in the illegal
trade of Elephant Tusks(Ivory) will be passing by HP Petrol
bunk, Attibele, Raikote road, at around 11.00 a.m., on
05.03.2024 and they will be having contraband item in their
possession. The intelligence also indicated that the gang will
be travelling in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA01-AC-7040 for carrying out this trade of Elephant Tusks.
Further, I.O has informed the mahazar witnesses about the
information and requested them to witness the intended
proceedings of seizure of elephant tusks. Thereafter, the team
of DRI Officers and mahazar witnesses went near HP Petrol,
Attibele, Rayakottai Road and kept a watch. At about 10.45
a.m., the said auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-01AC-7040 was identified at about 50 mts from the spot and the
DRI officials surrounded the vehicle and found two persons
namely the accused No.1 and 2, who were found in
possession of the said contraband that is the Elephant Tusks
(2 no.s). During further enquiry of accused No.1 and 2, they
revealed that there are five more persons who are a part of
7
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
their team and also involved in smuggling of elephant tusks
waiting inside a White Indica car bearing registration No.KA02-ME-9690 that is parked 500 mts away from the spot and
they are doing surveillance for any incoming police vehicles.
On the said information, the I.O. along with witnesses, the
offenders interdicted and officers of DRI BZU proceeded
towards the second vehicle and intercepted the vehicle along
with five persons i.e. accused No.3 to 7. On being asked
about any valid license for trade of elephant tusks and for
possession of elephant tusks, the accused No.1 and 2 have
stated that they does not have any license or valid legal
documents for possessing or trading of elephant tusks. Hence,
the respondent authority has seized two elephant tusks and
auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-01-AC-7040.
9.

Thereafter, I.O. has arrested accused No.1 to 7
and produced them before the learned Judge of Spl. Court for
Economic Offences, Bengaluru. The learned Judge has
remanded the accused No.1 to 7 to judicial custody.
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed bail application before the
trial court. The learned trial Judge vide order dated 25.03.2024
was pleased to dismiss the bail application filed by the present
petitioner. Hence, the petitioner i.e. the accused No.3 has filed
8
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
this petition being aggrieved by the order of the trial court by
rejecting his bail application. The petitioner has contended that
he is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offences
and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has argued that the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner itself is not maintainable. The
respondent authority has no power to file complaint against
the petitioner and other accused. It is further argued that no
power is vested with the custom authorities to investigate the
offences punishable under the Wild Life Protection Act and to
give the complaint. Only the persons mentioned under Sec.55
of the Wild Life Protection Act are competent to file complaint.
There are no circular which authorized the Director of
Revenue Intelligence to give complaint under the Wild Life
Protection Act. It is further argued that no recovery is made
from the accused No.3 and he has been falsely implicated on
the basis of the voluntary statements of accused No.1 and 2.
In support of the arguments the learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon several decisions which are
separately mentioned in the memo submitted before the court.
10.

The learned Spl. PP. on the other hand in the
written arguments has reiterated all the contentions taken by
9
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
the respondent authority in the objection statement and hence,
the entire contentions of learned SPP taken in the written
arguments are not reproduced herein to avoid repetition of
facts.
11.

I have perused the impugned order of the trial
court dated 25.03.2024. The trial court in the impugned order
has observed that the offences alleged against the accused
No.1 and 2 is serious in nature as they were found
transporting two elephant tusks by concealing the same in
auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-01-AC-7040. It is
also observed by learned magistrate that the present
petitioner and other accused persons having indulged in the
surveillance as to arrival of police very much amounts to
abatement and conspiracy in commission of offence by
accused No.1 and 2. The trial court has observed that there
are prima faice materials and reasonable grounds regarding
the involvement of accused No.3 in commission of alleged
offences. The trial court has also observed that the gravity of
offence being that of against the wile life which is very much
affects the ecology of the country and poses the threat to the
flora and fauna and causing grave imbalance to the
10
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
environment. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned trial judge
has rejected the bail application filed by the petitioner.
12.

The offences alleged against the petitioner is not
exclusively punishable with death of imprisonment for life. The
minimum punishment for commission of alleged offence is
three years and which may extend to seven years and fine of
not less than Rs.25,000/-. The alleged offences are triable by
learned
magistrate.

The
complaint
is
lodged
by
the
Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence by
alleging the violation of provisions of Sec.9, 39, 40, 44 and
49(B) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 which are punishable
u/Sec.51 of the said act. All the offences alleged against the
petitioner is pertaining to the Wild Life Protection Act. As it is
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
as it is held by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the
decisions reported in 2008 ILR Kar 1892(S.Bylaiah V/s State),
Crl.P.No.2550/2021 (DD.30.07.2021) (Ramesh V/s State of
Karnataka and others) and other decisions relied upon, it is
held that no court shall take cognizance of any offence
committed under the Wild Life Protection Act except on the
complaint of any person other than the person authorized
u/Sec.55 of the Wild Life Protection Act.

11
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
Sec.55 of the Wild Life Protection Act provides as
follows:
No Court shall take cognizance of any offence against
this Act except on the complaint of any person other than(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other
officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government;
or(aa)Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters
relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A;
or(ab)Member-Secretary,
Tiger
Conservation
Authority;
or(ac)Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or[(ad) the
Management Authority or any officer, including an officer of
the Wild Life Crime Control Bureau, authorised in this behalf
by the Central Government; or]
(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer
authorised in this behalf by the State Government subject to
such conditions as may be specified by that Government;
or(bb)the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of
provisions of section 38-J; or
(c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty
days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of
his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government
or the State Government or the officer authorized as
aforesaid.

12
13.

Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence is not shown as the authority who has got power
u/Sec.55 of the Wild Life Protection Act to lodge complaint.
The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has argued that the
government has issued circular authorizing the respondent
authority to give complaint for violation of the Wild Life
Protection Act. The learned Spl. PP. has submitted that he will
produced the relevant circular. Whether the complaint filed by
the respondent authority is in accordance with law or not has
to be decided on merits of the case.
14.

Coming to the merits of the petition, it is to be
noted here that the name of the present petitioner was told by
accused No.1 and 2 in their voluntary statement before the
arresting authority. It is alleged in the remand application that
on the basis of the voluntary statement given by accused No.1
and 2, the investigating officer has apprehended the present
petitioner and other three persons at the distance of 500
meters from the place where the accused No.1 and 2 were
arrested. The Investigating officer has not seized the Indica
Car bearing registration No.KA-02-ME-9690 in which it is
alleged that the present petitioner and others were doing
13
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
surveillance for any incoming police vehicle. Further the
Investigating officers have not seized any ivory from the
possession of the present petitioner. No material objects were
seized from the possession of the present petitioner in order to
prima facie show that the petitioner has committed the
offences punishable under Wild Life Protection Act. Further
the present petitioner were arrested only on the basis of
voluntary statement of accused No.1 and 2. Whether the
present petitioner has committed the alleged offences along
with accused No.1 and 2 or not has to be adjudicated only
after full-fledged trial.
15.

The
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
of
India
in
Balachandh @ Baliya (AIR 1977 SC 2447) and in many
cases has held that has laid down the legal doctrine that “bail
is a rule and jail is an exception”. This legal doctrine is laid
down for safe guarding a fundamental right under article 21 of
Constitution of India, granting the right to life and liberty. The
petitioner is in judicial custody since from the date of his
arrest.
16.

Further, the petitioner is ready to abide by any
terms and conditions imposed by the court for his enlargement
14
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
on bail. He is also ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of
the court for his appearance before the Investigating Officer.
The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of
the case. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the
address mentioned in the cause title. The presence of the
petitioner during the course of investigation of the case can be
secured by imposing suitable conditions. The apprehension of
Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor regarding absconding of the
petitioner and regarding petitioner threatening the prosecution
witnesses and destroying the evidence can be make good by
imposing suitable terms and conditions. Further elephant
tusks were already seized from the possession of accused
No.1 and 2. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
required for further investigation of the case. Further accused
No.4 to 7 against whom similar allegations are made as
alleged against the present petitioner were already granted
anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.2580/24. Under these facts and
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the bail petition filed by
the petitioner can be allowed and petitioner can be enlarged
on
bail
by
imposing
suitable
terms
and
conditions.

Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.

15
17.

Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner/Accused
u/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.

No.3
The petitioner/Accused No.3 is enlarged on bail in Crime
No.22/2024 (F.No.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-21/INT-NIL)/2024 of
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence police station for the
offence punishable u/Sec.9, 39, 40, 42A, 49A, 49B and 51 of
the Wild Life Protection Act 1972, pending on the file of
learned Special Court for Economic Offences at Bengaluru, on
petitioner executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with one surety for likesum to the satisfaction of the Learned
Magistrate on the following further conditions:CONDITIONS
(1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer once in 15 days on every Sunday for the period of
three months or till completion of investigation of the case
which ever is earlier and he shall appear before I.O. as
and when called for during the course of investigation of
the case and he shall co-operate with the investigation of
the case.
(2) The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly on
all hearing dates during the trial of the case.
(3) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
16
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024
disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or
any hamper with the evidence.
(4) The petitioner shall not commit offences of similar in nature
or any other offences in future.
(5) The petitioner shall furnish his correct address proof before
the trial court.
(6) The petitioner shall not leave India without previous
permission of the court.
(7) Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would entitle
for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected
and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of
April, 2024).

(B.G.Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

17
Crl.Misc.No.3150/2024