IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Manoj Bachkheti - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2199 of 2019
Decided On : 30-01-2020
Bail - Wildlife Protection Act - The court granted bail to the applicant under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, considering the lack of independent witnesses, the absence of criminal history, and the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application in connection with an offense under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, involving the arrest of four persons with the skin of a Guldar.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, granted bail to the applicant based on the lack of independent witnesses, absence of criminal history, and the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail.
Issues: Bail application under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of independent witnesses, absence of criminal history, and the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail as grounds for granting bail to the applicant.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J. - Heard Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. J.S. Virk, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. Urgency Application is not opposed by learned Counsel for the State, therefore, the Urgency Application No. 1523 of 2020 is allowed.
3. This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 23 of 2019, registered with Police Station Someshwar, District Almora, for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused and gone through the records.
5. As par the prosecution case, on 26.09.2019 on an information four persons were arrested with a skin of one Guldar.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated; there is no independent witness in spite of prior information; the applicant has no criminal history; he is in the custody since 26.09.2019. Out of four accused persons, two accused persons namely Chandan Singh and Basant Lal have already been granted bail.
7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. However, the learned counsel appearing for the State admits that the role of all the accused persons is same and out of four accused persons, two accused persons have been granted bail by this Court.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.