2024 (11) TMI 1173 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of pre-arrest bail - offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 48 and 48A read with 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - capturing six ball pythons, a golden child retic, three striped mud turtles, an Indian star turtle, a marmoset monkey, and an iguana on a specified premises - HELD THAT - From a cursory reading of Schedule I of the Act, it appears that the Indian star turtle does not form part of this Schedule, and the other animals are included in Appendix I to Schedule I. Under Section 51 of the Act, this violation is punishable for imprisonment for a term upto three years, a fine extended to Rs.1 lakh, or both. It is acknowledged that the applicant was not present during the alleged raid. Upon a perusal of the records, particularly, the leave and license agreement of the premises, it appears that the applicant was neither the owner nor the licensee of the premises. The applicant merely attested to the document as a witness, which in itself does not suggest his involvement in the crime. At this stage, the material on record does not prima facie incriminate the applicant in the present crime. Additionally, the animals have been seized and it is reported that the animals have been relocated as required by law. The prosecution s apprehension about evidence tampering and witness influence can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. In the event of the applicant s arrest in connection with Forest Offence Report No.WL-08-2024 (also registered as WL-61- 2024), he shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Application for pre-arrest bail in connection with Forest Offence Report for offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Analysis:
The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in relation to a Forest Offence Report for offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The indictment stated that a raid was conducted based on confidential information at a specific location, revealing the presence of various protected animals leading to the registration of the crime. The applicant, through his counsel, argued that he was not present during the raid, did not own or occupy the premises, and the animals seized did not belong to him. The counsel emphasized the applicant's innocence and willingness to cooperate with the investigation. On the other hand, the prosecutor contended that the offence was serious, highlighting the applicant's connection to the premises where the animals were found and expressing concerns about evidence tampering if the applicant was granted bail.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented, the Court examined the allegations against the applicant, which involved the capture of protected animals, potentially violating the Act. It was noted that the applicant was not present during the raid and was neither the owner nor the licensee of the premises where the animals were found. The Court observed that the applicant's mere attestation of a document related to the premises did not imply his involvement in the crime. Additionally, it was found that the animals had been seized and relocated as required by law, addressing concerns about their well-being. The Court acknowledged the prosecution's fears of evidence tampering and witness influence but determined that imposing appropriate conditions could mitigate these risks.

Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion in favor of the applicant and granted pre-arrest bail. The conditions for bail included the execution of a PR Bond, furnishing sureties, and a requirement for the applicant to cooperate with the investigating authority as needed. Furthermore, the applicant was prohibited from engaging in activities that could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The application for pre-arrest bail was disposed of accordingly.