IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Anil Verma, J.
Ravindra & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 57856 of 2022
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Wildlife Protection Act - Bail Application - The court granted bail to the accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, Indian Forest Act, and Public Property Damage Prevention Act. The court considered the lack of evidence connecting the accused to the offence, the duration of custody, and the exclusive trial jurisdiction as reasons for granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were arrested in connection with offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, Indian Forest Act, and Public Property Damage Prevention Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused were caught with a two-headed snake and a motorcycle, but the applicants claimed innocence and argued that they were falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the lack of evidence connecting the applicants to the offence, the duration of custody, and the exclusive trial jurisdiction. It granted bail to the accused, directing them to furnish a personal bond and surety, and abide by specified conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants should be granted bail in connection with the alleged offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, Indian Forest Act, and Public Property Damage Prevention Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted bail to the accused based on the lack of evidence connecting them to the offence, the duration of custody, and the exclusive trial jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicants on bail, with specified conditions and a warning that the order would stand cancelled if the applicants were found involved in any other offence during the trial.
JUDGMENT
Anil Verma, J. - Applicants have filed this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with POR No. 483/01 registered at P.S - Forest Range, Khategaon, District- Dewas (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 2(16), 9, 39, 48, 50, 51, 52, 56 of Wild Life Protection Act 1972, Sec.41, 26(i) 7 of Indian Forest Act, 1972 & Sec.3(1) of Public Property Damage Prevention Act 1984
2. As per prosecution story, on 07-12-2021 on the information received from the informer, at village Nayapura Bajgaon Road, near Khategaon Forest Range, the unknown person was caught with motorcycle bearing No.MP-47-ML-1022 being brought two headed snake Chaklaud (Sandbua). The unknown person fled away from the spot throwing away the motorcycle and said snake. Resultently, a report was lodged at Forest Range, Khategaon, District-Dewas Accordingly, the aforementioned offence was registered and they were arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this offence. There is no legal evidence available on record to connect the applicants with the aforementioned offence. Nothing has been recovered from their possession. Investigation is over and complaint has been filed before the trial Court, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicants is required.. Applicants are in custody since 15/09/2022. Applicant no. 1 is permanent resident of District- Dewas, while applicant no. 2 of District - Harda. Final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.
4. Per-contra, learned PL for respondent - State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by stating that applicant no. 2 is the registered owner of the seized vehicle, but he fairly admits that no criminal antecedents have been found against both the applicants.
5. Perused the impugned order of the trial Court, the statements of the witnesses as well as the case dairy.
6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of the fact that the alleged offence is exclusively triable by JMFC; nothing has been revoered from the possession of both the applicants; they are in custody since 15/09/2022; investigation is over therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicants is required and possibility of delay in conclusion of the trial cannot be ruled out, in view of the evidence available on record, I deem it proper to release the accused / applicants on bail.
7. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the trial Court, as and when required.
8. They shall abide by all the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) Cr.P.C.,
9. It is made clear that if the applicants are again found to be involved in any other offence during the trial, this order shall stand cancelled automatically without reference to the Court and the police will be at liberty to arrest the applicants in the present case also. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
AI
The court may grant bail based on the lack of criminal antecedent, the period of custody, and the ground of parity with co-accused, considering the possibility of delay in the conclusion of the trial....
The court considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the delay in FIR, and the time spent by the applicant in jail in granting bail.
The court established that prolonged detention without trial can justify the granting of bail, emphasizing the balance between personal liberty and the seriousness of the charges.
Defendants entitled to bail due to lack of evidence for continued detention.
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure attendance, not punishment.
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.