GAHC010285322025 2025:GAU-AS:17614

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : AB/3029/2025

RAJIB CHOWDHURY

S/O SHIBASHIS CHOWDHURY

R/O 8 AJC BOSE ROAD, WARD NO. 10, NEW BARRACKPORE, NORTH 24

PARGANAS, KOLKATA-700131, WEST BENGAL.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SPECIAL PP, WILDLIFE, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, MR. U S BORA Advocate for the Respondent : SPL PP WILDLIFE FOREST ASSAM,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

ORDER

18.12.2025

1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Special Public

Prosecutor, Wild Life Forest, Assam appearing for the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant, viz., Rajib Chowdhury in connection ONP Case No.07/2025 registered under Sections 2/9/35/49(B)

of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

3. The instant case i.e. ONP Case No.07/2025 has been registered primarily on the basis of the alleged interception of one Mofidul Islam on 25.11.2025 at Kharupetia Police Station dealing with 17 numbers of live Channa Barca allegedly brought from Orang National Park area. It has been alleged that since 2023 the accused persons had been supplying Channa Barca to the present accused/applicant.

4. It is the case of the accused/applicant that he was earlier implicated in ONP Case No.03/2025 under Sections 2/9/27/49B of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 on the allegation that one accused had shared the accused/applicant’s contact details and another accused had sent him a video of a fish claimed to be Channa Barca. Being aggrieved at that time, the accused/applicant approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Darrang and he was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 11.11.2025.

5. Being seriously aggrieved by the registration and continuation of ONP Case No.03/2025, the accused/applicant had approached this Court by filing a Criminal Petition being Criminal Petition No.1560/2025 on the grounds, amongst others, that the proceedings were initiated by misapplying purely definitional provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; that no offence of hunting or sanctuary violation was made out. In the aforesaid case, vide order dated 11.12.2025 the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to issue notice and call for the Trial Court records.

6. It is contended by the accused/applicant that while the accused/applicant was fully cooperating with the investigation in the earlier case, the respondent authorities have now registered the instant case i.e. ONP Case No.07/2025 under Sections 2/9/35/49(B) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 arising out of the same alleged transactions, same species and same chain of allegations.

7. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the accused/ applicant submits that the accused/applicant has been so implicated solely on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused persons purportedly recorded by Forest officials, wherein vague, general and unsubstantiated allegations have been made suggesting that the accused/applicant had, at some unspecified point of time, purchased fish from one Hindol Haldar or had supplied fish in the past.

8. In view of the aforesaid ONP Case No.07/2025, the accused/applicant is apprehending arrest particularly in view of the matter in which the offence report has been forwarded and arrest grounds had been prepared against other accused persons. The learned counsel further submits that the sections as invoked against the accused/applicant are, in fact, not applicable to the accused/ applicant as he is neither engaged into hunting nor he has committed any offence inside a national park. He further submits that Section 49B of the aforesaid Act of 1972 pre-supposes that the accused/applicant is engaged as a dealer or trader in scheduled animal articles or captive animals whereas the accused/applicant