Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rejecting the bail application in a matter registered at State Tiger Strike Force, Jabalpur for hunting a Schedule-I animal, a single-judge bench of Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J., held that hunting a Schedule-I animal like a tiger, especially in a planned manner, is a grave offence that poses a significant threat to wildlife and forests.
In the instant matter, the State Tiger Strike Force, M.P., on 07-08-2023 received information regarding tiger hunting and encircled three individuals but was only able to apprehend the applicant 1. Applicant 1 was found with a nylon bag which contained 49 bones, 14 nails, and 31 mustache hairs of a tiger. During interrogation, applicant 1 disclosed that he, along with co-accused, had hunted a tiger using electric wires. A subsequent search led to the seizure of the tiger’s carcass and nine pieces of GI pipe wires. The DNA testing confirmed that the seized items belonged to a female tiger. A case was registered under Sections 2(16), (36) read with Sections 9, 39, 44, 48(A), 49(B), 51, 52, and 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022. The applicants filed the present application seeking bail. This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicants seeking regular bail. They are currently in detention since 08-08-2023 and 09-08-2023 respectively.
The applicants argued that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It was contended that no items were seized directly from their possession and the impugned seizure was not witnessed by any independent party and the matter is relied solely on testimonies from Forest Department personnel. However, the State opposed the bail application and asserted on the severity of the offence which involves the hunting of a Schedule-I animal under the Wildlife Protection Act and poses significant environmental risks. The State argued that the nature of the offence requires strict action and the continued detention of the accused.
The Court reviewed the case diary and evidence and acknowledged that the hunting of a Schedule-I animal is a serious offence and that the planned nature of the crime is not to be treated lightly. The Court stated that “The hunting of wild animal like tiger in a planned manner cannot be treated as a normal offence as same poses threat to nature and forests.”
Considering these factors, the Court decided that the present case is not a suitable case for granting bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the fourth bail application. However, noting that the applicants have been in custody for nearly 11 months, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within six months.
[Khandate v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5154, Decided on 29-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Hemendra Singh Thakur, Counsel for the Applicants
Shri A.R. Ben, Dy. Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent/State
