AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M G Uma, J
The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 92/2023 of Shikaripura Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Shikaripura, Shimoga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Raghavendra K B.
Heard Smt. Vinita J.D, learned counsel for Sri. Devendrappa, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
n view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:
REASONS
The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 4. The materials on record disclose that initially the Forest Officer registered the case under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Subsequently, the present FIR came to be registered for the offence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially these petitioners were arrested by respondent police on 07.12.2020 and they were granted interim bail. However, they could not comply with the conditions imposed while granting interim bail and therefore, there is apprehension of being arrest. When once the petitioners are already arrested, they could not have invoked Section 438 of Cr.PC. Even otherwise, the conduct of the petitioners disentitles them from seeking anticipatory bail. I do not find any reason to entertain the petition. Hence petition is dismissed.