SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 17879

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VISHAL DHAGAT
Sheetal Prasad Pandey – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 9182/2024



Advocates:
Amit Dubey,Advocate General

Unintentional killing of a wild animal under the Wildlife Protection Act may be considered for bail if there is no evidence of intentional hunting.

Headnote:

WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT - BAIL - ELECTROCUTED BLUEBUCK - UNINTENTIONAL ACT - BAIL GRANTED

Fact of the Case:

The applicant was arrested for the electrocution of a bluebuck that came into contact with an electric wire laid to protect his agricultural field from wild animals.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant did not intentionally hunt the bluebuck and had been in jail since February 16, 2024.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail for the unintentional electrocution of a bluebuck under the Wildlife Protection Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant should be granted bail considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the unintentional nature of the act and the period of detention.

Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety.

ORDER

This is first bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No./POR No.304/2011 registered at Police Station-Forest Range Vishramganj, Uttar Van Mandal, District-Panna (MP) for the offence under Sections 2, 9, 39, 51, 52 of Wild Life Protection Act.

2 . Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that one bluebuck (nilgai) came in contact of electric wire and was electrocuted. It is submitted that electric wire was laid for protection to his agricultural field from wild animals. Applicant has not intentionally hunted any wild animal. Applicant is in jail since 16.02.2024. In these circumstances, applicant may be released on bail.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the bail application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, bail application filed by the applicant is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his regular appearance before Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of trial.

6. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions of Section 437(3) of Cr. P. C. as under:- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;

    (b) that such person shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected of the commission of which she is suspected and;
    (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

7. Certified copy as per rules. (VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE nd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top