The Court of the LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-53), presided over by Sri B.G. Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on March 27, 2024, dismissing a regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2792/2024 denied bail protection to Sri Muneer Basha (Accused No. 1) and Sri Abdul Raheem (Accused No. 2), who were held in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 22/2024 (F.No. DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-21/INT-NIL/2024) registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Bengaluru Zonal Unit, pending on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences at Bengaluru. The petitioners faced prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Sections 39, 40, 42A, 49A, 49B, and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from specific intelligence gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding illegal wildlife contraband trafficking:

• Intelligence and Interception: On March 5, 2024, at approximately 11:00 AM, DRI intelligence officers received credible information that a smuggling syndicate was attempting to transport elephant tusks near the HP Petrol Bunk on the Attibele-Rayakottai Road using an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. KA-01-AC-7040.
• Red-Handed Seizure: The DRI team, accompanied by mahazar witnesses, intercepted the auto-rickshaw near the specified spot and apprehended Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Upon searching the vehicle, officers recovered two elephant tusks (ivory) valued at approximately ₹2.5 Crores.
• Syndicate Surveillance: During interrogation, the primary accused revealed that five other associates (Accused Nos. 3 to 7) were waiting nearby in a white Maruti Suzuki Indica car (Reg. No. KA-02-ME-9690) to conduct surveillance and watch for incoming police vehicles. The DRI team subsequently intercepted the second vehicle and apprehended the remaining suspects. Because neither petitioner possessed any valid license, permit, or legal documentation for trading or possessing wildlife parts under the Wild Life Protection Act, the contraband and vehicles were seized under a mahazar, and the accused were remanded to judicial custody.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1: Sri Muneer Basha, aged 37 years, son of Mahaboob Basha, residing at Dasanapura, Mayasandra, Anekal, Bengaluru – 562107.
• Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 2: Sri Abdul Raheem, aged 36 years, son of Abdul Rasheed, residing at No. 6, 8th Cross, Padarayanapura, Bengaluru.
• Legal Representation: Sri Sateesh T., Advocate
• Prosecution Representation: Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. Innocence and False Implication: The defense maintained that the petitioners were entirely innocent, had not committed any offences, and were falsely implicated by the DRI authorities on mere suspicion.
2. Lack of Physical Possession: Counsel argued that the petitioners were not in conscious physical possession of any contraband at the time of arrest, that the proceedings initiated by the DRI were not maintainable, and that the trial court had erred in rejecting their bail plea on March 12, 2024.
3. Socio-Economic Background: The petitioners contended they are daily wage workers and the sole breadwinners of their respective families, with Petitioner No. 1 supporting aged parents, and undertook to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

On Behalf of the Respondent (DRI)

1. Red-Handed Apprehension: The learned Special Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, submitting that the petitioners were caught red-handed while transporting two elephant tusks—classified under Part ‘A’ of Schedule I (Sl. No. 83) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972—with a commercial market value exceeding ₹2.5 Crores.
2. Statutory Presumption of Guilt: The prosecution emphasized that under Section 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act, where a person is found in possession or control of any wildlife article or part thereof, a legal presumption of unlawful possession arises, placing the heavy burden squarely on the accused to prove lawful acquisition.
3. Ongoing Investigation and Flight Risk: The state argued that the investigation was still incomplete, with other co-conspirators yet to be interrogated, and releasing the petitioners at this stage would pose a severe risk of abscondence, evidence destruction, and tampering with statutory presumptions.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the records, remand applications, and rival submissions, Judge B.G. Pramoda recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Gravity of Wildlife Offences: The court underscored that wildlife trafficking offences, particularly those involving Schedule I species like elephants (ivory tusks listed under Part A, Schedule I, Sl. No. 83), have severe ecological repercussions, posing a direct threat to flora and fauna and causing grave environmental imbalance.
2. Statutory Presumption Under Section 57: The Sessions Judge highlighted the rigorous mandate of Section 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, which presumes unlawful possession until the contrary is proved by the accused. The court noted that the petitioners failed to produce any prima facie documentary evidence or license demonstrating lawful acquisition of the elephant tusks seized directly from their custody.
3. Distinction from Co-Accused: Addressing the defense argument regarding co-accused (Accused Nos. 4 to 7) who were previously granted bail, the court clarified that those individuals were released because no contraband was recovered from their direct possession, whereas the present petitioners were caught red-handed transporting the ivory tusks.
4. Necessity of Continued Detention: Given the ongoing nature of the investigation, the gravity of the economic and ecological offences, and the risk of evidence tampering or creation of false documents to rebut statutory presumptions, the court concluded that the trial court’s order rejecting bail was legally sound and that judicial custody must continue.

Final Bail Rejection Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, the Sessions Court passed the following order:

• The regular bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Sri Muneer Basha and Sri Abdul Raheem) in Crime No. 22/2024 of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) is hereby DISMISSED.