IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3963 of 2026 VINOD SAKET Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Mr. Sourabh Singh Thakur, with Ms. Manali Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mamta Mishra - PL for the State.

ORDER This MCRC under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budhar, Shahdol arising out of the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by JMFC in RCT No.428/2025, Budhar, District-Shahdol, whereby the order rejecting the application of the petitioner was up-held.

Hence, this petition has been filed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.06.2025, two persons namely Vinod Saket and Heera Singh Paraste were arrested, while trying to sell the parts of the wild animal leopard near Boddiha junction in village Ghirolin Budhar Amarkantak main division. Accused Tej Bahadur Singh had given the leopard's skin, hair and nails filled in a sack. Accused Ramnaresh had obtained leopard skin, hair and nails from other accused and kept them in his house. He had buried the skin in a rotten state in the boundary of his house by digging a pit. The accused /applicant had obtained one nail, which he had got embedded in silver and had kept 7 nails in the blind. It is alleged by the prosecution that the nails and skin of the wild animal leopard have been found in the possession of the accused/applicant and co-accused and the said act of the accused is against the wildlife and Environment. Thereafter, the offence punishable under Sections 9, r/w section 2(16), 9, 39,44, 48A 49B, 51, 52, 57 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Present petitioner was arrested on 4.6.2025 and trial Court framed charges against the petitioner and co- accused persons on 30.07.2025. Thereafter, the trial Court fixed the case for the first time for prosecution evidence on 13.08.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The story as narrated by the prosecution is highly concocted by the complainant against the petitioner and co-accused persons at the behest of the police. It is also submitted that the orders passed by the both the Courts below are perverse and illegal, improper and against the law. It is also submitted that till today, only 5 witnesses have been examined out of 14 witnesses. Thus, trial has not been concluded within a period of 60 days from the date of first evidence recorded before the trial Court. Therefore, under the mandatory provision of section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, it has been prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned orders may also be quashed and the petitioner be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. This Court has gone through the evidence available on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. It appears from the record of the case that the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner that there is no such delay and the proceedings has been continuously floating as per Rules and the allegations against the petitioner are that the alleged offences are grievous in nature and the learned ASJ has also rejected the application of the petitioner on the same ground but the reasons assigned by the learned ASJ for rejecting the petitioner's application do not appears to be correct.

7. In the light of the order discussed in Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs.

State of Chattisgarh, Cr.A.No.818/2025 (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No.1314/2025), Hon'ble The Apex Court has held as under:-

"17. This Court is of a considered view that applications under Section 437 (6) have to be given a liberal approach and it would be a sound and judicious exercise of discretion in favour of t