BENGALURU – The LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to Suman Krishnan, identified as Accused No. 3, in a significant wildlife trafficking case involving the attempted sale of elephant tusks. The court observed that while the allegations against the gang are serious, the lack of direct recovery from the petitioner and the specific legal provisions regarding the filing of complaints under wildlife laws warranted his release from judicial custody.
The order was delivered by Sri B.G. Pramoda, the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, on April 8, 2024. Suman Krishnan, a 39-year-old resident of Nanjappa Layout, Bengaluru, had been in custody since his arrest by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in early March.
The DRI Raid and the 2.5 Crore Ivory Seizure
The case, registered as Crime Number 22/2024, was initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) following specific intelligence gathered on March 5, 2024. The DRI received a tip-off that a gang involved in the illegal trade of ivory would be passing near an HP Petrol Bunk on the Attibele-Rayakottai Road.
According to the DRI’s remand application, the officials intercepted an auto-rickshaw carrying two individuals, Muneer Basha (Accused No. 1) and another accomplice (Accused No. 2). Upon searching the vehicle, the officials recovered two massive elephant tusks, estimated to be worth approximately 2.5 crore rupees in the illegal market.
During the on-the-spot interrogation of the first two suspects, they allegedly revealed that five more team members were stationed in a White Indica car about 500 meters away. This secondary group, which included the petitioner Suman Krishnan, was reportedly conducting surveillance to alert the main transporters of any incoming police or law enforcement vehicles. The DRI subsequently intercepted the car and arrested Suman Krishnan along with four others (Accused No. 4 to 7).
Legal Framework and Jurisdictional Challenges
The petitioner was charged under several sections of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, including:
- Section 9: Prohibition of hunting.
- Section 39: Wild animals, etc., to be Government property.
- Section 40: Declarations of possession of animal articles.
- Section 49A and 49B: Prohibition of dealings in trophies and animal articles derived from scheduled animals.
- Section 51: Penalties for violation of the Act.
A primary argument raised by Suman Krishnan’s counsel, Sri Santhosh N., focused on the maintainability of the DRI’s complaint. The defense argued that under Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, only specific authorized officers (such as the Director of Wild Life Preservation or the Chief Wild Life Warden) are competent to file a complaint for the court to take cognizance of an offense. The defense contended that the DRI officials do not inherently possess the power to investigate or file complaints under this specific legislation.
Furthermore, the defense highlighted that no ivory was actually recovered from Suman Krishnan’s possession, nor was the Indica car used for surveillance seized by the authorities. His implication was based solely on the voluntary statements of the co-accused, which are often subject to strict scrutiny under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court’s Reasoning and “Bail is the Rule” Doctrine
In evaluating the bail plea, Judge B.G. Pramoda noted that the offenses alleged carry a minimum punishment of three years, extending up to seven years. Since the offenses are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry a life sentence or death penalty, the court applied the classic judicial doctrine: “Bail is a rule and jail is an exception.”
The court observed that the main contraband (the ivory tusks) was already in the custody of the DRI, having been seized from Accused No. 1 and 2. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of Suman Krishnan was no longer necessary for the progress of the investigation. The court also took note of the fact that other co-accused (Accused No. 4 to 7), who faced identical allegations of providing surveillance, had already been granted anticipatory bail by the court.
Conditions of Release
While allowing the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court imposed a set of stringent conditions to ensure the petitioner’s cooperation:
- The petitioner must execute a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees with one surety for the like sum.
- He must appear before the Investigating Officer every Sunday for the next three months or until the investigation is complete.
- He is strictly prohibited from threatening or inducing prosecution witnesses.
- He must not leave the country without the prior permission of the court.
- He must appear before the court regularly on all hearing dates during the trial.
The court warned that any violation of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of his bail. The ruling underscores the court’s effort to balance the protection of endangered wildlife with the fundamental right to liberty during the pre-trial phase.