Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2 ORAL ORDER 2 18-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Forest Case No. 88F of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 9, 39, 43, 44, 49A, 49B, 50 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act.
According to the prosecution, on the tip off, the informant, (Forest Range Officer) along with his higher officials having formed a raiding party, left for the spot. As soon as the departmental vehicle along with the forest workers reached the place of occurrence, the criminals started running away. On chase one of them was apprehended, who on interrogation disclosed his name as Tufail Alam. A dead Nilgaye was also recovered. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83540 of 2023(2) dt.18-01-2024
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Except the confessional statement of co-accused Tufail Alam, there is nothing against him and the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent.
Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender within four weeks before the learned court below, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah West Champaran in connection with Forest Case No. 88F of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.