Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.B. Shukre, J.
SURAJPAL – Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
Cri. Appln. (BA) No. 604 of 2014
Decided On : 19.12.2014
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - 51(1), 38, 40(1), 40(2), 44, 49-B, 52 - The court discussed the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, particularly sections 51(1), 38, 40(1), 40(2), 44, 49-B, and 52, and their application in the context of the bail application. The court emphasized the seriousness of the crime alleged against the applicant, the impact on public interest, and the irreversible adverse effects on human society due to the hunting of a critically endangered animal, the tiger. The court also considered the possibility of the applicant committing similar offenses, the threat issued by the applicant to a co-accused, and the high stakes involved in wildlife crimes.
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to the hunting of a tiger in a forest range. The applicant is accused of being the mastermind behind the crimes related to hunting of tigers and abetting these crimes by providing financial aid and logistical support. The Forest Department filed a complaint case against the applicant and other accused, alleging their involvement in the hunting of tigers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient material disclosing prima facie involvement of the applicant in the offenses alleged against him. The confessional statements of the co-accused and the applicant, along with CDRs and other evidence, were considered to show the applicant's involvement in the crimes. The court also emphasized the seriousness of the alleged crime and its impact on public interest and human society.
Issues: The issues included the prima facie involvement of the applicant in the offenses, the admissibility of confessional statements, and the seriousness of the alleged crime. The court also considered the possibility of the applicant committing similar offenses, the threat issued by the applicant to a co-accused, and the high stakes involved in wildlife crimes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding of sufficient material disclosing prima facie involvement of the applicant in the offenses alleged against him, the seriousness of the alleged crime, and the impact on public interest and human society. The court also considered the possibility of the applicant committing similar offenses, the threat issued by the applicant to a co-accused, and the high stakes involved in wildlife crimes.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application, citing the seriousness of the alleged crime, the impact on public interest and human society, the possibility of the applicant committing similar offenses, the threat issued by the applicant to a co-accused, and the high stakes involved in wildlife crimes.
This is an application filed under section 439 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1972 for grant of bail, with the bail applications filed by the applicant having been rejected firstly by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati on 17-5-2014 and secondly by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 24/7/2014.
2. This case pertains to hunting of a tiger in Dhakana forest range situated in Gugamal Wild Life division of Melghat Tiger Reserve, district Amravati. Initially, the Forest Department registered a Preliminary Offence Report (hereinafter referred as "P.O.R.", for the sake of convenience) No.10/10 on 15-2-2014 for the offences punishable under sections 51 (1) read with sections 38, 40 (1), 40 (2), 44, 49-B and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and commenced investigation into the hunting of the tiger. During the course of the investigation, the present applicant along with other accused persons were arrested and after completion of the investigation, the Forest Department filed complaint case against the applicant and three accused, which is registered as Criminal Case No. 477/13. It is presently pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati.
3. The allegations against the applicant is that he is mastermind of crimes relating to hunting of tigers and he initiates these crimes by providing financial aid, logistical support and appropriate rewards by purchasing tiger skins and body parts. It is also alleged that the non-applicant is an international trader of skins and body part of the tiger, a Schedule-I animal.
4. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant submits that even though the allegations apparently appear to be serious in nature, on perusal of the complaint and also the material placed on record in support of the allegations in the complaint, one would find that so far as the allegations made against the non-applicant are concerned, the allegation of his being international trader of tiger skins and its body parts and abettor of crimes relating to hunting of tigers are missing in as much as no call details records (CDRs) have been placed on record, so as to prima facie establish complicity of the applicant in this crime together with the other co-accused. He submits that even the sim card of mobile handset seized in this case is not registered in the name of the applicant. He submits that the amount of Rs. 50 lac seized from the house of the applicant has been properly justified by him by producing on record the documents showing that the amount was received by the wife of applicant, Chandadevi, as sale proceeds of her house. He submits that in the crime registered against the applicant at Delhi, two persons namely Sonam and Pasang Bangdu were summoned and their statements were recorded wherein it was stated by them that they had no dealings with the applicant. He submits that statements of the co-accused in this crime are discrepant and inconsistent and, therefore, no reliance could be placed upon them even for making any prima facie inference regarding involvement of the applicant in the present crime. He further submits that the applicant was not allowed to have any cooling off period before his confessional statement was recorded and it was neither read over to him nor it was told to him that it could be used against him. He also submits that no explanation is forthcoming from the Forest Department as to why his statement under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code was not recorded. He also submits that in any case, the confessional statement of the applicant was recorded after the applicant was subjected to torture and, therefore, it was retracted by him later on and as such it cannot be referred to in any manner for any purpose.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the provisions regarding bail should not be used as if a pretrial punishment is being imposed upon the accused as the basic principle of criminal law is that every accused is innocent till he is found
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
