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

Case disposed

Filing Number

5052/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

5052/2026

Registration Date

11-03-2026

Court

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, SITTING AT KANAKAPURA

Judge

988-II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT KANAKAPURA

Decision Date

25th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

Sri. Shivu alias Poojarappa

Adv. DEEPAK K

Sri. Lokesh

Respondent(s)

Range Forest Officer Muguru

Hearing History

Judge: 988-II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT KANAKAPURA

25-03-2026

Disposed

18-03-2026

ORDERS

16-03-2026

To hear

13-03-2026

objection

11-03-2026

objection

Final Orders / Judgements

25-03-2026
Orders

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, SITTING AT KANAKAPURA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case