The court granted regular bail based on a material discrepancy in the identification of the land where the offence occurred, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents.

Order on Board

1. Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, has filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record, and has also removed the default on behalf of the applicant.

2. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. (P.O.R. No.) 21872/03, registered at Police Station – Forest Range Machkot, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, is that the present case arises out of P.O.R. No. 21872/03 dated 31.01.2026, registered at Forest Range Machkot, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh), under Sections 9 read with 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, wherein the applicant/accused was arrested on 31.01.2026. As per the prosecution case, on the said date, the forest guard, along with his team, while on routine patrolling, discovered the carcass of a male chital (a species of deer) entangled in a clutch-wire laid in an agricultural field. Upon inquiry from nearby persons, the said land was stated to be in possession of the accused, who is a forest rights holder. During spot inspection, the forest officials seized the carcass along with eight clutch-wires. It is alleged that the accused had laid the wire snares for the purpose of hunting, resulting in the death of a Schedule-II protected wild animal. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent authorities, in their pleadings and official records, have acknowledged that the land in question is in possession of the applicant. However, upon verification of the official revenue records, particularly the Rin-Pustika of the applicant, it is evident that the land owned and possessed by the applicant falls under Compartment No. 1814, whereas the alleged place of incident, from where the dead chital and clutch-wires are stated to have been recovered, has been identified by the prosecution as Compartment No. 1152. This material discrepancy in the identification of the land goes to the root of the prosecution case and seriously undermines the allegation that the recovery was made from the applicant’s land.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the implication of the applicant is based solely on the alleged recovery from a piece of land wrongly attributed to him, without any material to establish that the applicant had placed or installed the said snare. In the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence linking the applicant to the alleged act, and in light of the incorrect identification of the land, the essential nexus between the applicant and the alleged offence is completely lacking. It is further contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant have no previous criminal antecedents. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 31.01.2026. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allega