ORDER

Date : 06-05-2020

1. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

2. Sri Suruj Gogoi has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 453/2019 (G.R. Case No. 2280/2019), registered under Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not appeared, yet again.

4. Order dated 24th April, 2020 reads as under:

“Sri Suruj Gogoi has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Bihpuria PS Case No.453/2019 (G.R. No.2280/2019)

registered under Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not appeared.

4. I am conscious of the fact that interim direction was granted in favour of the applicant vide order dated 11.11.2019.

5. List on 6.5.2020.

6. It is made clear that in case counsel for the applicant does not appear on the next date of listing, the case is likely to be decided on the basis of available record. Mr. BK Mahajan, learned Special Public Prosecutor shall also take instruction from the prosecuting agency indicating any material that might connect the application with commission of offence.

7. Let copy of this order be provided under the signature of the Court Master.”

5. The applicant has been enjoying the benefit of interim anticipatory bail since

11.11.2019, however, has not been taking any steps to prosecute the application.

6. It has become evident that the applicant is abusing the benefit granted by virtue of the interim bail and delaying the proceedings by not appearing in the Court.

7. Any request for appearance from remote location has also not been received from the applicant. No application for adjournment of the matter has been received.

8. Constrained with the above circumstances, I have gone through the pleadings in the application and have heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the prosecution.

9. As per the FIR, a photograph relating to a wildlife crime was uploaded in Facebook (social media) through an account identified as that of the applicant. The photograph shows a hunted “Monitor Lizard”, locally known as Guiee, hung on a small tree and being cut out with sharp blade. The FIR has pointed out that “Monitor Lizard” is a wildlife animal as per Schedule 1 (part 2) under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and hunting of such animal is treated as a serious wildlife crime under Sections 2, 9, 39, 49B, and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

10. Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the prosecution has impressed on the Court that the FIR is self-explanatory and the crime is depicted by the social media projection from the account of the applicant. In such circumstances, it is imperative for the investigating agency to question the accused, at length, in regard to the purported crime committed by him.

11. It is pleaded on behalf of the applicant in the application that the applicant is not involved in committing such offence. The applicant was not caught red handed. The applicant does not know as to who used his Facebook account. The case has been fabricated against the applicant.

12. I have considered the plea taken on behalf of the applicant. The grounds taken in the application also are matters of investigation. It is only through investigation that all the facts, viz., whether the Facebook account of the applicant was used; whether somebody had hacked the account of the applicant; whether the applicant had the occasion to kill the Monitor Lizard and whether he killed the lizard, etc., can be ascertained.

13. Considering the serious nature of the offence and in vie