The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the seriousness of the crime, the impact on the environment and society, and the accused's potential to tamper with evidence when exercising discretion in bail matters under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

S.B. Shukre, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kartik N. Shukul, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Forest Department of State of Maharashtra and Mr. R.J. Mirza, learned counsel for the non-applicant.

2. This application filed under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeks cancellation of bail granted under Section 439(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code on 30.7.2014 in M.C.A. No. 1332/2014 by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

3. The non-applicant came to be arrested by the State Forest Department in Preliminary Offence Report (hereinafter referred to as, "P.O.R.") No. 32/2013, registered for an offence punishable under Section 51 read with Sections 9, 39, 44, 49B and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 against several accused persons including the non-applicant. The main allegation against the non-applicant is that he is a trader, who deals in purchase and selling of endangered wild animals including critically endangered animal, the tiger, and is also a provider of funds and logistical support required by poachers for killing precious wild animals and extracting their skins and body parts for the purpose of their trading in India and abroad. It is also alleged that the non-applicant has links with international wild animal dealers and thus the offences registered against the non-applicant and other accused persons have transnational ramifications.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that there is available on record overwhelming evidence indicating prima facie involvement of the applicant in the offences registered against him. The material indicates that the applicant had financed the operation for poaching of tigers in Maharashtra including one tiger poached in Melghat forest situated in Amravati district, which is the subject matter of the present crime. He also submits that for this purpose, the present applicant had given an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to one of the accused Sarju through other co-accused Naresh and that after Naresh and Sarju purchased the tigers skins, nails and bones from the poachers in Maharashtra, Naresh and Sarju handed them over to the present applicant, who personally collected the same by purchasing them. He further submits that the link between the poachers operating in the forest areas of Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, the middle men like Naresh and Sarju and the present applicant, came to be revealed when Naresh and Sarju were arrested at Delhi on 7.9.2013 while they were travelling in a car bearing registration No. HR-11-E-1001 and stated before Delhi Police about the involvement of the present applicant and role played by him in initiating poaching of endangered scheduled animal, the tiger in Maharashtra, providing necessary support for completing the poaching operation and rewarding the same by purchasing the skins and body parts of tiger killed in the operation. He further submits that there have been confessional statements of not only Naresh and Sarju, but also present non-applicant which prima facie suggest that the non-applicant is the key accused without whose encouragement and support, killing of endangered species of wild animals, especially the tiger, would not take place. He further submits that the confessional statements have also revealed that the crime prima facie committed by the applicant has transnational ramifications.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the material placed on record, one can see that the crime prima facie committed by the non-applicant is very serious and threatens very survival of the society as without tigers forests cannot survive and without forest, human society cannot sustain itself. He, therefore, submits that the learned Sessions Judge, while granting bail to the applicant ought to have considered the seriousness of the crime appropriately, but unfortunately, that is not the case. He also submits that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored other vital aspects of the whole issue and they relate to possibi