Journalism of Courage
Hanur shootout: Anticipatory bail for officials who allegedly killed 3 poachers
The Chamarajanagar court asked why the victims entered a reserved forest with arms in the first place.
The three men who were killed in the alleged encounter in the Hanur forest. (Photo by special arrangement).
A Karnataka court granted anticipatory bail on Tuesday to three forest department personnel accused of killing three suspected poachers in an alleged encounter in the Cauvery Reserve Forest near Hanur, ruling that they need not face custodial interrogation while a magisterial inquiry into the incident remains pending.
Judge T C Srikanth of Chamarajanagar’s First Additional District and Sessions Court said, “The case of the prosecution is depending upon circumstantial evidence. Hence, question of tampering the evidence does not arise. The place of incident is in the middle of the forest covered by bushes, stones and rock. The time of incident was 4 am. When we analyze the situation, it may not be possible for the forest officials to aim towards the deceased, so that the bullets hit below the waist, as the place was covered with bushes, stones and rock and it was dark at that time. Though at present as per the Government Proceeding, police should not arrest the petitioners till the recommendation of Magisterial Enquiry is known, however, the possibility of the arrest of the petitioners after Magisterial Enquiry is revealed cannot be ruled out. The petitioners are appearing before the Investigating Officer and cooperating with the investigation. Hence, the petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation by the respondent police and well-dressed trial is required. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the address mentioned in the cause title which is not in dispute. They can be secured for trial.”
The three accused are beat forester Shivaraja Sasalavadada, anti-poaching camp forester Shivalinga Nayaka, and anti-poaching camp watcher Girisha.
The court noted that a magisterial inquiry—mandatory under a 1991 government order whenever forest personnel discharge firearms—was still underway, with the case having since been handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the police.
Stating that section 31 of the Wildlife Protection Act bars anyone from entering a sanctuary with a weapon without prior written permission, the judge asked why the men were in the reserve forest with arms in the first place.
While three men were killed in the alleged encounter in August, a fourth man, Mahima Das, escaped from the spot. The victims’ family members claim they had ventured into the forest looking for lost cattle.
Forest department officials have registered a case against the fourth man, stating that they have recovered two muzzle-loading guns along with 38 spent cartridges. They contend that the men had entered the protected forest with arms and had fired on the officials, who then returned the fire in self-defence.
Story continues below this ad
The 1991 order permits forest personnel to use firearms to protect forest property and their own lives, using minimum necessary force, but bars the police from arresting or proceeding against officers involved in a shooting until the magisterial inquiry’s findings are known.
The judge also pointed to legal protections available to forest officers, including under section 114 of the Karnataka Forest Act, which shields officers acting in good faith from prosecution.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Live Blog
Advertisement