Syed Mohammad Jaffer Barmavar vs Range Forest Officer, Bhatkal Range, UK — 96/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th March 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAUK010003792026
e-Filing Number
26-02-2026
Filing Number
96/2026
Filing Date
03-03-2026
Registration No
96/2026
Registration Date
03-03-2026
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR
Judge
1407-II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGEUTTARA KANNADA
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Syed Mohammad Jaffer Barmavar
Adv. Deepa R Udiyar
Respondent(s)
Range Forest Officer, Bhatkal Range, UK
Hearing History
Judge: 1407-II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGEUTTARA KANNADA
Disposed
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 13-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 11-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 96/2026 The II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Syed Mohammad Jaffer Barmavar, who was accused of wildlife poaching offences under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972. The court found that the accused and others illegally trespassed into a wildlife sanctuary with unlicensed weapons, hunted Gaur (Indian Bison) and Sambar deer, and stored the meat for sale—with forest officials recovering over 52kg of animal parts from his premises. The court rejected bail citing the serious nature of wildlife crimes, risk of evidence tampering, ongoing investigation with weapons yet to be recovered, other accused persons remaining at large, and the accused's absconding status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 96/2026 The II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Syed Mohammad Jaffer Barmavar, who was accused of wildlife poaching offences under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972. The court found that the accused and others illegally trespassed into a wildlife sanctuary with unlicensed weapons, hunted Gaur (Indian Bison) and Sambar deer, and stored the meat for sale—with forest officials recovering over 52kg of animal parts from his premises. The court rejected bail citing the serious nature of wildlife crimes, risk of evidence tampering, ongoing investigation with weapons yet to be recovered, other accused persons remaining at large, and the accused's absconding status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts