Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 52
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
AKSHAY MANDAL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
AB / 134 / 2025
MR. D CHOUDHURY, MR. R K SARMA, MR T CHAKRABORTY
Statements from co-accused are insufficient for liability in pre-arrest bail applications, especially in serious wildlife offences.
Headnote:(A) Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 9, 39, 49B - Pre-arrest bail application - The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case involving wildlife contraband of big wild cat species, following a raid where materials were seized - Prime accused granted bail, but petitioner's bail rejected due to reliance on co-accused's statement, which is insufficient for liability - Comparison with previous bail case found inapplicable due to differing facts and circumstances. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory bail - The court emphasizes that mere implication by a co-accused does not suffice for granting bail, especially when the gravity of the offence is significant. (Paras 8-13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of possessing wildlife contraband linked to a co-accused, who has a contentious relationship with the petitioner. The prime accused has been granted bail, but the petitioner’s application was rejected.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient grounds for bail, citing ongoing investigations and the nature of the allegations.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can be granted bail based solely on co-accused's statement and the implications of the offence's severity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statements from co-accused do not establish liability without corroborating evidence, especially in serious wildlife offences.
Result: Petition for pre-arrest bail rejected.
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Heard Mr. T Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Akshay Mandal, who has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail, as he is apprehending arrest in connection with a case vide OR No. KR/06/2024 under Sections 9/39/49B of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (the Act of 1972 for short) as amended up to date.
2. Heard Mr. I Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D Gogoi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife.
3. It is submitted that the prime accused, Basudev Ray has already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijni vide order dated 18.01.2025 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 37/2024, but the petitioner’s prayer for pre-arrest bail was rejected vide order dated 18.01.2025 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 36/2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijni.
4. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection.
5. The gist of the case is that on 07.12.2024, on a tip off, a joint raid was conducted by police and the forest staff in the house of Basudev Ray and some materials of wild cat species were seized and sent for expert opinion. As per the seizure list, a packet covered by plastic net containing wild life contraband of big wild cat species and others weighing about 4.865 kgs. was recovered.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is apprehending arrest as he has been named as an accused on the statement of the co-accused, Basudev Ray, who revealed that the body parts of the wild cat were kept in his house by the present petitioner, i.e., Akshay Mandal.
7. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a person cannot be held liable on the basis of the statement of a co-accused. There was an acrimonious relationship prevailing between the petitioner and the co-accused, Basudev Ray, who has implicated the petitioner as being complicit in connection with this case.
8. Mr. Borthakur, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail considering the gravity of the offence relating to big wild cat which includes tiger or leopard and hunting of such big wild cat cannot be ruled out considering the conduct of the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 21975/2022 , wherein vide order dated 07.05.2022, the petitioner, Govind Singh Rajpoot was granted pre-arrest bail in a similar offence.
10. The facts and circumstances of this case do not appear to be similar to the facts and circumstances of the case of Govind Singh Rajpoot Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 21975/2022 .
11. It is not clear from the order whether the petitioner, Govind Singh Rajpoot was booked in connection with a case relating to big wild cats. The present petitioner has also not affirmed whether the petitioner is a first offender unlike the case of Govind Singh Rajpoot (Supra), wherein it was affirmed by the petitioner, Govind Singh Rajpoot that he was a first offender.
12. The offence report reveals that the investigation is ongoing and every endeavor is made to apprehend the petitioner along with any of his companions.
13. Although the petitioner has alleged of an acrimonious relationship between him and the co- accused, who has implicated him, yet at this juncture, this Court is hesitant to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
14. Hence, the petition with prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected at this stage.
