Nafr High Court
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:12835 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2099 of 2025 Anil Kumar S/o A. Bhagwan Das Aged About 24 Years R/o Babhani, P.S. Babhani, District Sonbhadra, (U.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Forest Ranger, Forest Range- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer MCRC No. 2131 of 2025 Ramvachan Ram S/o Shiv Ram Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Purandih, P.S.- Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Forest Ranger OfÏcer, Forest Range Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.03.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under 2 Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Forest Crime No. POR No. 20055/22, registered at Police Station : Forest Range-Ramanujganj District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 2, 9, 50, 51, 52, of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 28.12.2024, based on credible information, a joint operation was conducted by the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Bhopal, State Level Flying Squad Team, Raipur and Forest Department, Ramanujganj, Balrampur, Forest Range At Forest Block Gulgul Path (Paltan Ghat), Room No. P3436. During raid, Anil Kumar and one other accused namely Ramvachan Ram were found in possession of 02 Ras of Leopard Skin and 01 Ras of Bear Skin which is protected under The Wildlife Act, 1972. Thereafter Forest Range, Ramanujganj, has registered a case as forest crime No.20055/22 dated 28.12.2024, for offence committed by accused punishable under Sections 2, 9, 50, 51, 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972, against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They further submits that no one has seen the animals being killed in this case, nor has any weapon used to kill have been seized, nor has any material been seized from the possession of the accused, the accused is rural illiterate persons and has no knowledge of the law. 3 They further submits that the offence is triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the above said offence is scheduled under 1 & 2 and maximum punishment of 3 years is provided under the law and the applicants are in jail since 29.12.2024 and parents of applicants are old aged, there is a wife and children's also who are fully depends on them and the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, they prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents however, the crime committed by the applicants is serious in nature therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and further from the joint possession of the applicants, two leapord skins and one bear skin, were seized however, the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 29.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. Let applicant Anil Kumar, involved in Forest Crime No. POR No. 4 20055/22, registered at Police Station : Forest Range-Ramanujganj District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 2, 9, 50, 51, 52, of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties and the applicant- Ramvachan Ram involved in Forest Crime No. POR No. 20055/22, registered at Police Station : Forest Range-Ramanujganj District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 2, 9, 50, 51, 52, of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued 5 and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberated or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice