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

2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9077

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ghanshyam – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 38112/2022



Advocates:
Sanjay Sharma,Advocate General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT ON THE 5th OF AUGUST, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38112 of 2022 Between:-

GHANSHYAM S/O SHRI BARELAL DONGERWAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O VILLAGE SITAPATHORE, P.S. TEHSIL TIRODI, DISTRICT BALALGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI SANJAY SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PROJECT RANGE OFFICER WARASEIONI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI VIJAY SONI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicant. Applicant has been arrested on 23.07.2022 in connection with Crime No.277/2016 registered at Police Station- Project Range Officer Waraseoni, District-Balaghat (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 9, 39, 49, 50 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Section 429 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been arrested on the basis of circumstances that hairs of Tiger had been found in his Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR agricultural field and further his agricultural field was guarded by GI wire and it was connected with electricity line. Counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is not a habitual offender. He was not involved in any wild life offence earlier. GI wires were installed in his agricultural field only to protect his crop from wild animals. He had not intentionally killed any Tiger. Recovery is from open place and not from exclusive possession of applicant. In these circumstances, he prayed that applicant be enlarged on bail.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the application for grant of bail. It is submitted that applicant had intentionally fenced his field with GI wire connected to electricity line so that he can kill wild animals. Tiger is a protected animal, therefore, bail application be dismissed.

Heard the counsel for the parties.

Considering the fact that seizure of hairs of Tiger has been made from open place. No recovery of remains of Tiger is made from the applicant. There is no criminal history of applicant that he is involved in killing of wild animals and earning money from it.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, bail application filed by the applicant is allowed It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he 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.

C.C. as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT)

JUDGE sp/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top