Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Mashkoor Ullah - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 23925 of 2020
Decided On : 08-09-2020
Bail Application - Wild Life Protection Act - Sections 9, 39, 48(A), 50 & 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Section 41 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 - The court discussed the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and the Indian Forest Act, 1927, particularly focusing on the classification of offences as bailable or non-bailable based on the prescribed punishments. The court also considered the definitions of 'hunting' and the penalties for contravention of the Act. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to deny anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was apprehending arrest in connection with hunting of Nilgai in a Reserved Forest Area. The applicant claimed innocence, citing lack of presence at the incident place and the bailable nature of the alleged offences. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in hunting and was in possession of the vehicle and weapon used in the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's involvement in hunting of Nilgai was prima facie established, and the possession of the vehicle and weapon used in the crime further implicated the applicant. However, the court considered the offences not punishable with more than seven years and directed the police to resort to arrest only if necessary and after the applicant's failure to cooperate in the investigation.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the applicant's alleged involvement in hunting of Nilgai, possession of the vehicle and weapon used in the crime, and the classification of the offences as bailable or non-bailable based on the prescribed punishments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and the Indian Forest Act, 1927, particularly regarding the classification of offences as bailable or non-bailable based on the prescribed punishments, and the directive from the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar.
Final Decision: The court denied anticipatory bail to the applicant but directed the police to resort to arrest only when necessary and after the applicant's failure to cooperate in the investigation.
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J. - This is first bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No./POR No. 28088/2006, registered at Office of Forest Range Officer, Forest Circle Berasiya, District-Bhopal (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39, 48(A), 50 & 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1972') and Section 41 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1927').
2. According to prosecution case, on 16.04.2020, in the night at about 12:30 o'clock, Forest Official (Van Chowkidar) informed the Forest Guard through mobile phone that he heard fire shot's noise in room No. R.F.111. Thereafter within an hour, the Forest team reached the spot and saw two persons standing near Scorpio car (MH-04-DR-5828) and Bolero car (MP-04-CA-4922). Range Officer identified them as Soyeb Qureshi and Haseen Khan. While searching the car, the officials found the body parts of Nilgai as well as one rifle. On asking, the accused persons stated that they hunted Nilgai with said rifle. On investigation, Forest Official found that the Bolero jeep is registered in the name of present applicant and he fled away from the spot. The applicant was the license holder of rifle which was alleged to have been used in crime.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that applicant was not spotted on incident place. The police involved the present applicant in crime being owner of Bolero jeep and having license of allegedly used weapon but said jeep was sent by brother of applicant for pulling Scorpio car and weapon was recovered from other co-accused. He further submits that the offences levelled against the applicant are bailable in nature as same are not having punishment of more than three years. He also produced the copy of order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C No. 20732/2020 (Panjosh Pardhi Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh) wherein the Court relying upon the order passed by High Court of Chhatishgarh, in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. State of Chhatishgarh in M.Cr.C. No. 774/2012 dated 20.02.2015 observed that under the Act 1972, if the offences levelled are not having punishment of more than three years, same are considered to be bailable. In the present case, all the offences do not have punishment of more than three years and thus same are bailable. He further submits that co-accused of case have already been enlarged on bail by this High Court as well as trial Court. He also submits that the applicant is under medical treatment and at present due to spread of 'Covid 19' pandemic, he is worried for his arrest on health issues too. Withe the aforesaid, he prays for allowing this bail application.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail application.
5. Heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the case diary.
6. On perusal of case diary as well as other material thereof, the allegations against the present applicant is that he hunted wild animal Nilgai in Reserved Forest Area. The Nilgai comes under schedule-III of Act 1972 and thus it is alleged that the applicant violated the provision of Act 1972. The offence of Section 41 of Act 1927 has also been levelled against the applicant for which maximum punishment of six months is prescribed. According to applicant, the offences of Act 1972 levelled against the applicant are triable by Magistrate and having maximum punishment of three years only. He submits that by virtue of Part-II, contained in Schedule I to the Code of Criminal Procedure, an offence under the other special law, punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, is non-cognizable but bailable. The counsel relied on the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Panjosh Pardhi (supra) wherein the Court observed as u
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
