AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.63/2026 registered by Bajpe Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 111(2)(b) of BNS, 2023, Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act, 2020, Sections 11(A) and 11(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 192(A) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sections 4 and 25-1(B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, are before this Court in these two petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
FIR in Crime No.63/2026 was registered by Bajpe Police Station, Mangaluru City, against unknown persons based on the first information dated 18.03.2023 received from Latha K N, police officer attached to Bajpe Police Station. During the course of investigation of the case, petitioners were arrested on 19.03.2026 and remanded to judicial custody. Their bail applications filed before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.296/2026 and Crl.Misc.No.304/2026 were rejected on 28.04.2026. Therefore, they are before this Court.
In the first information dated 18.03.2026, it is stated that on 18.03.2026 when the first informant, who is a police officer, was on duty, she received information that cattle were being illegally transported in a Fortuner car. Immediately thereafter, first informant along with her staff had gone to the alleged spot where the accused persons were loading the cattle into the Fortuner car. After seeing the police, accused persons allegedly escaped and four cows which were loaded in the fortuner car were rescued. During the course of investigation, petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It appears that subsequently considering the fact that petitioners are involved in other criminal cases, the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023, was also invoked in the present case. It is not in dispute that in all the other criminal cases registered against the petitioners, they have been enlarged on bail. List of criminal cases registered against the petitioners is available on record. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in none of the criminal cases registered against the petitioners, the minimum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for a period of three years or more.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Brijesh Singh alias Arun Kumar and Another -(2017) 10 SCC 779, in paragraph No.33, has observed as follows:-
"33.FIR No. 122 of 2010 is registered under Sections 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Section 341 IPC is punishable with a maximum sentence of one month, though it is a cognizable offence. Section 506 IPC is a non-cognizable offence which was made a cognizable offence by a notification issued by the Delhi Government. This notification was quashed by the High Court of Delhi on 13-1-2004 [Narendra Kumar v. State, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 17 : (2004) 72 DRJ 620] . A second Notification for the same purpose was issued by the Delhi Government on 31-3-2004 which was challenged in WP (C) No. 2596 of 2007. The High Court of Delhi initially stayed [Rajeev Mehra v. State, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1200 : (2007) 143 DLT 432] and ultimately struck down the second notification on 18-1-2016 [Rajeev Mehra v. State, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6575] . As such, Section 506 IPC was a non-cognizable offence at the date of registration of the FIR and filing of the charge-sheet. Only an unlawful activity which is a cognizable offence punishable with minimum sentence of three years or more would be a continuous unlawful activity under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Hence, FIR No. 122 of 2010 cannot be taken into account."
Sofaras the other offences invoked against the petitioners are concerned, the maximum punishment for the same is imprisonment for a period of seven years. Petitioners are in custody in the present case for the last more than four months.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - (2020) 11 SCC 648, has observed that a person's criminal antecedents alone cannot be a sole ground to reject his prayer for grant of bail, if he is otherwise found entitled for the same.
Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively, subject to appropriate conditions.
The petitions are allowed. The petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.63/2026 registered by Bajpe Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 111(2)(b) of BNS, 2023, Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act, 2020, Sections 11(A) and 11(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 192(A) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sections 4 and 25-1(B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, subject to the following conditions:
Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
The petitioners shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts their appearance for valid reasons;
The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
The petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future;
The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against them is disposed off.
The petitioners are directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Bajpe Police Station, Mangaluru City, on the first and third Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. and mark their attendance, for a period of one year from the date of their release from custody in the present case.