Advocates:
['JEMINI BRIJMOHAN KASAT', 'VINAY V DAHATVINAY V DAHAT', 'VINAY V DAHAT', 'APP']

aba.593.16 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Criminal Application [ABA] No.593 of 2016

(Ravi Jagatrao Ingle

vs.

The State of Maharashtra, through Forest Department, Amravati)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders

or directions and Registrar’s orders.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the Applicant.

Shri S.J. Kadu, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant/State.

CORAM

: S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATE

: 28

^th SEPTEMBER, 2016.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and

the learned A.P.P. for the State.

By this application, the applicant is seeking

anticipatory bail in P.O.R. No.45/2014, registered against him

for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life

(Protection) Act, 1972 (‘the Act of 1972’ for short) in relation

to violation of Sections 9, 39(3)(a)(b)(c), 44(1)(b), 48(a), 49

and 49-B(1)(b) of the Act of 1972.

Upon receiving an information that a 'Ghorpad',

called the Monitor Lizard, having been illegally captured and

brought to one agricultural field situated within the precincts

of village Pimpalkhuta, was cooked and its meat was

consumed by 7-8 persons in a party held in the evening of

17/07/2016 in the said field, the Forest Officers conducted a

aba.593.16 2

raid on the agricultural field. The raid laid bare few empty

liquor bottles, bones of an animal and pieces of leftover meat

strewn at the spot. One person Maroti Waghmare was found

to be present in the field. So, an enquiry was made with him.

It was revealed that this applicant had taken active part in

acquiring, possessing and destroying a wild animal called

Monitor Lizard, listed in Schedule-I to the Act of 1972. These

revelations made Forest Officers believe that an offence

punishable under Section 51 of the Act of 1972 triggered by

violations of several sections of that Act was committed by this

person and so the P.O.R. was registered and further

investigation was made.

According to the learned Counsel for the applicant,

the applicant is not involved in any manner in commission of

the alleged crime. He submits that even otherwise, the

prohibited acts as prescribed in Section 39(3)(a)(b)(c) of the

Act of 1972 and other sections are not prima facie committed

in the instant case. He further submits that no identification

has been done and the statement of the co-accused cannot be

used against the applicant in view of the bar under Section

50(9) of the Act of 1972 and Section 25 of the Indian

Evidence Act. He further submits that the applicant is not the

poacher and has roots in the society. He also submits that the

aba.593.16 3

custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Thus,

he urges that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

Strongly opposing the application, the learned

A.P.P. for the State submits that there is an ample material

prima facie showing involvement of the applicant in

commission of the crime alleged against him and his

custodial interrogation is very much necessary to unearth the

source from where the Monitor Lizard was procured and the

manner in which it was procured and also to ascertain as to

whether or not there are more such Monitor Lizards having

been illegally captured.

So far as the argument regarding the statement of

the co-accused being hit by Section 50(9) of the Act of 1972

and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, I must

say, I am not impressed with it. The investigation has just

begun and there is a long time to go for the trial before the

Magistrate to commence. Bar under Section 50(9) of the Act

of 1972 would come into picture only when the trial before

the Magistrate would begin.