The seriousness of the offence under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the admissibility of co-accused statements, and the necessity of custodial interrogation were central legal points established in the judgment.

S.B. Shukre, J.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in P.O.R. No. 45/2014, registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ('the Act of 1972' for short) in relation to violation of Sections 9, 39(3)(a)(b)(c), 44(1)(b), 48(a), 49 and 49-B(1)(b) of the Act of 1972.

3. Upon receiving an information that a 'Ghorpad', called the Monitor Lizard, having been illegally captured and brought to one agricultural field situated within the precincts of village Pimpalkhuta, was cooked and its meat was consumed by 7-8 persons in a party held in the evening of 17/07/2016 in the said field, the Forest Officers conducted a raid on the agricultural field. The raid laid bare few empty liquor bottles, bones of an animal and pieces of leftover meat strewn at the spot. One person Maroti Waghmare was found to be present in the field. So, an enquiry was made with him. It was revealed that this applicant had taken active part in acquiring, possessing and destroying a wild animal called Monitor Lizard, listed in Schedule-I to the Act of 1972. These revelations made Forest Officers believe that an offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act of 1972 triggered by violations of several sections of that Act was committed by this person and so the P.O.R. was registered and further investigation was made.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant is not involved in any manner in commission of the alleged crime. He submits that even otherwise, the prohibited acts as prescribed in Section 39(3)(a)(b)(c) of the Act of 1972 and other sections are not prima facie committed in the instant case. He further submits that no identification has been done and the statement of the co-accused cannot be used against the applicant in view of the bar under Section 50(9) of the Act of 1972 and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that the applicant is not the poacher and has roots in the society. He also submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Thus, he urges that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

5. Strongly opposing the application, the learned A.P.P. for the State submits that there is an ample material prima facie showing involvement of the applicant in commission of the crime alleged against him and his custodial interrogation is very much necessary to unearth the source from where the Monitor Lizard was procured and the manner in which it was procured and also to ascertain as to whether or not there are more such Monitor Lizards having been illegally captured.

6. So far as the argument regarding the statement of the co-accused being hit by Section 50(9) of the Act of 1972 and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, I must say, I am not impressed with it. The investigation has just begun and there is a long time to go for the trial before the Magistrate to commence. Bar under Section 50(9) of the Act of 1972 would come into picture only when the trial before the Magistrate would begin. So far as the confessional statement of the co-accused recorded by the Forest Officers is concerned, it may be pointed out, I have already held in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suraj Pal, in Criminal Application No. 99 of 2014, decided on 12/12/2014 that the Forest Officer being not a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confessional statement of the co-accused would not be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and that it could be read as a statement against the co-accused, so long as it discloses the relevant facts.

7. The statements of the co-accused - Maroti Waghmare and Vilas Dahake, at this stage, have disclosed the relevant facts prima facie incriminating the applicant in the crime registered against him. Their statements, at this stage, show that thi