Sri. Shivu alias Poojarappa vs Range Forest Officer Muguru — 5052/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 25th March 2026.
Crl.Misc. - Criminal MISC.CASES
CNR: KARN300000902026
Filing Number
5052/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
5052/2026
Registration Date
11-Mar-2026
Court
II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, SITTING AT KANAKAPURA
Judge
988-II Addl. District And Sessions Court Kanakapura
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sri. Shivu alias Poojarappa
Adv. DEEPAK K
-
2.Sri. Lokesh
Respondent(s)
-
1.Range Forest Officer Muguru
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
OrdersView PDF
Case Summary: Crl.Misc.5052/2026 Court Decision: The court GRANTED anticipatory bail to both petitioners (Shivu alias Poojarappa and Lokesh), accused of wildlife protection violations. The judge found reasonable grounds for bail despite prosecution objections, relying on Supreme Court precedent that custodial presence isn't necessary for offences with maximum 7-year imprisonment when evidence (recovered flesh) requires full trial scrutiny. Conditions: Rs. 50,000 personal bond each with surety; no witness tampering; cooperation with investigation; no similar criminal activities; biweekly attendance before the Forest Officer for 8 weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Mar-2026
Disposed
II Addl. District And Sessions Court Kanakapura
-
18-Mar-2026
Orders
II Addl. District And Sessions Court Kanakapura
-
16-Mar-2026
To hear
II Addl. District And Sessions Court Kanakapura
-
13-Mar-2026
objection
II Addl. District And Sessions Court Kanakapura
-
11-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 5052/2026
Case Summary: Crl.Misc.5052/2026 Court Decision: The court GRANTED anticipatory bail to both petitioners (Shivu alias Poojarappa and Lokesh), accused of wildlife protection violations. The judge found reasonable grounds for bail despite prosecution objections, relying on Supreme Court precedent that custodial presence isn't necessary for offences with maximum 7-year imprisonment when evidence (recovered flesh) requires full trial scrutiny. Conditions: Rs. 50,000 personal bond each with surety; no witness tampering; cooperation with investigation; no similar criminal activities; biweekly attendance before the Forest Officer for 8 weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts