Witness’s Contradictory Testimony Not a 'Substantial Change' for Bail in Poaching Case, Rules MP High Court

Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh - The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling on bail jurisprudence, has dismissed the third bail application of an individual accused of poaching a spotted deer. The Court, presided over by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, held that alleged contradictions in the testimony of a single prosecution witness do not constitute a "substantial change in circumstances" to warrant bail, especially when previous applications have been rejected on merits.

The decision underscores the judiciary's stern approach towards wildlife offences and sets a high bar for granting bail based on developments during the trial stage.

Case Background

The case involves Devisingh, who was arrested on June 21, 2025, in connection with a 2013 crime registered under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The prosecution alleges that forest officials, acting on a tip-off about illegal hunting in the Son Chidiya Sanctuary, apprehended Devisingh with the head and four legs of a spotted deer (Chital) on his motorcycle.

After two of his bail applications were dismissed on merits, Devisingh filed a third plea, citing a new ground: the testimony of a key prosecution witness, Keshav Prasad (PW-1).

Arguments in Court

• Applicant's Stance: Counsel for Devisingh argued that PW-1's deposition had fundamentally weakened the prosecution's case. It was submitted that the witness admitted under cross-examination that:

  1. No expert or DNA report was on record to confirm the seized meat belonged to a spotted deer.
     
     
  2. He had not personally witnessed the applicant hunting, nor had anyone else reported seeing him do so.
  3. Crucial documents related to the spot inspection were prepared later at the range office, not at the scene of the crime. The defence contended that these admissions created serious doubts about the recovery and implicated the applicant, thus justifying his release on bail.

• State's Opposition: The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, arguing that the defence was cherry-picking isolated statements from a single witness's testimony. The State maintained that the prosecution's case was built on a foundation of contemporaneous seizure documents and other investigative material, not solely on PW-1's account. It was argued that the credibility and weight of the witness's testimony could only be evaluated by the trial court at the final stage. The prosecution also highlighted the gravity of wildlife poaching and warned that releasing the applicant could lead to the intimidation of other witnesses who were yet to testify.

Court's Reasoning and Judgment

Justice Phadke, after hearing both sides, found no merit in the applicant's plea. The Court observed that inconsistencies in a single witness's deposition are insufficient to reconsider bail at an interlocutory stage, particularly after prior rejections.

> The Court noted, "The alleged contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 are not sufficient to constitute a material change in circumstances so as to warrant reconsideration of the applicant’s bail at this stage. The evidence of a single witness, even assuming it contains certain admissions, cannot be seen in isolation."

The judgment emphasized the serious nature of offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, stating that such crimes affect public interest and ecological balance and must be dealt with sternly. The Court also took into account the stringent provisions of Section 51 of the Act, which place a higher burden on the accused to demonstrate their innocence for the purpose of securing bail in cases of hunting protected animals.

Final Decision

Concluding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances since the last dismissal, the High Court rejected the third bail application. The decision reaffirms the principle that bail cannot be granted by dissecting evidence piece-by-piece during the trial, and the overall gravity of the offence remains a paramount consideration.