Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Ganesh Ram S/o Shri Pingal Ram Manjhi & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
MCRC No. 9029 of 2021
Decided on : 27-01-2022
Wild Life Protection Act - Bail Application - Sections 9, 39, 50, 51, 52 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, particularly focusing on the definitions of Schedule III animals, penalties under Section 51, and the classification of offences as bailable or non-bailable. The court also referred to Section 20A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, to determine the categorization of the forest land. The judgment of the coordinate Bench in a similar case was cited to establish the nature of the offence and its classification.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were arrested for allegedly hunting a female Sambar in a forest area. The prosecution claimed that the offence occurred in a reserve forest and opposed the bail application, while the applicants asserted their innocence and sought bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offence fell within Section 51(1A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, making it a non-bailable offence. As a result, the bail application was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within 1½ years.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants were eligible for bail considering the nature of the offence and the categorization of the forest area where the alleged offence took place.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the offence committed in the reserve forest fell under Section 51(1A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, making it a non-bailable offence, thereby dismissing the bail application.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within 1½ years.
JUDGMENT :
1. The applicants have filed this first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as they have been arrested in connection with crime No. 15571/13 registered at Forest Officer, Forest Circle Arjuni, Distt – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39, 50, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the officers of the Forest Department Arjuni Circle received information on 26.10.2021 that applicants have haunted a female Sambar. On such information being received the Forest Officers prepared a team, conducted search and found that applicants were in possession of meat, they seized the meat and recorded their statements in which they stated that the dogs were caught hold of the Sambar so forest officer arrested them for alleged commission of offence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are innocent. He would further submit that the animal which has been alleged to have been killed by the applicants falls within Schedule-I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The Seizure Panchanama as well as recovery of the wild animal is from the spot, not from the possession of the applicants. The female Sambar was killed by dogs, they have not haunted the animal. He would further submit that the final report has not been submitted, the offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, punishment may extend to three years and trial may take some time and the applicants are in custody since 26.10.2021. The applicants are ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court, therefore, they may be released on bail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Arjun Singh and Others v. State of C.G. 2015(3) C.G.L.J. 372.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and would submit that the applicants have haunted animal which falls within Schedule III item No. 16 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and cut its carcass as reflected from the Panchnama. He would further submit that the place where the offence has been committed by the applicants falls within compartment No. 356 to 360 which has been declared Reserve Forest on 07.12.1878.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. For ready reference Schedule-III of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is reproduced below :-
[See secs. 2, 8, 1 *** 9, 11, and 61]
2[***]
[1.***]
2. Barking deer or muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak)
3. Bharal (Ovis nahura)]
[4. ***]
5. Chital (Axix axis)
[6. ***]
7. Gorals (Nemorheadus goral, Nemorhaedus hodgsoni)
[8. ***]
[9. ***]
[10. ***]
11***
12. Hyanena (Hyaena hyaena)
[13. ***]
14. Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)
[15. ***]
16. Sambar (Cervus unicolor)
[17. ***]
[18. ***]
19. Wild pig (Sus scrofa)
[20. Sponges (All Calcareans).]”
7. Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act provides penalties which is reproduced below:-
[Provided that where the offence committed is in relation to any animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or meat of any such animal or animal article, trophy or uncured trophy derived from such animal or where the offence relates to hunting in a sanctuary or a National Park or altering the boundaries of a sanctuary or a National Park, such o
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
