Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23912 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3035 of 2025 1 - Jagmohan S/o Mansingh Aged About 60 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Koilar, P.S. Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Netram S/o Jhalap Singh Aged About 40 Years Caste Ganda, R/o Village Koilar, P.S. Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Forest Range OfÏcer Dharamjaigarh, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-Applicant along with MCRC No. 3048 of 2025 1 - Sanatram S/o Jagmohan Aged About 50 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Koilar, P.S. And Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Bodhram S/o Tejram Aged About 55 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Koilar, P.S. And Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Sukhram S/o Sunaram Aged About 50 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Koilar, P.S. And Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Dalsai S/o Rangsingh Aged About 48 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Koilar, P.S. And Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Budhram S/o Premsingh Aged About 55 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Koilar, P.S. And Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Mahendra S/o Chamra Aged About 49 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Koilar, P.S. And Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 7 - Sanjay Sarthi S/o Charansingh Aged About 24 Years Caste Ghasiya, R/o Village Koilar, P.S. And Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 8 - Dugraj S/o Lagansai Aged About 52 Years Caste Majhwar, R/o Village Koilar, P.S. And Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Forest Range OfÏcer Dharamjaigarh, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shivendra Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.06.2025 1. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with POR No. 14064/2016, registered at Police Station : Forest Range OfÏce Dharamjaigarh, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 2, 9, 39, 51 and 52 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the incident, the Forest Guard of village Koilar received information from an informant that near Raja Jungle, a wild animal had been hunted. He forwarded this information to his superior ofÏcer. On receiving the information, the Forest Range OfÏcer, Dharamjaigarh, reached the spot along with his subordinate staff. During the investigation, they found evidence that a wild animal had been 3 illegally hunted, including blood stains at Raja Jungle near Premnagar. Tracing these blood stains, the forest staff found co- accused Jagmohan coming from Joba Jungle. On being questioned, Jagmohan admitted that he and nine friends had set up a fence and wire to catch and kill wild boars and that they had hunted two wild boars, one male and one female. The forest staff recovered the dead bodies of the wild boars and registered an offence under Sections 2, 9, 39, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 against the applicants. 3. Learned counsels for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the prosecution has falsely implicated the present applicants, as they have not committed any of the alleged offences, the forest staff arrested the applicants merely on suspicion. He further submits that the applicants are labourers from the tribal community, and on the date of the incident, they were returning from the jungle after collecting Mahuwa, when the Forest Range OfÏcer stopped them and wrongly alleged their involvement in the offence. Further no incriminating articles, such as wire, fence, or any edged weapon, were recovered from the applicants. The applicants reserve their right to raise additional grounds and file relevant documents at the time of hearing. He further submits that both the applicants have no any previous criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 24.03.2025, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he pray for grant of bail to the applicants. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicants had set up a fence and wire to catch and kill wild boars and that they had hunted two wild boars, one male and one female and the forest staff recovered the dead bodies of the wild boars, therefore, the applicants 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, though the allegations is that the applicants had set up a fence and wire to catch and kill wild boars and that they had hunted two wild boars, one male and one female and the forest staff recovered the dead bodies of the wild boars, but there is no incriminating articles, such as wire, fence, or any edged weapon, were recovered from the applicants, further the applicants have no any previous criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 24.03.2025, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, as such, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Jagmohan, Netram, Sanatram, Bodhram, Sukhram, Dalsai, Budhram, Mahendra, Sanjay Sarthi and Dugraj, involved in POR No. 14064/2016, registered at Police Station : Forest Range OfÏce Dharamjaigarh, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, (C.G.) for the offence punishable 5 under Sections 2, 9, 39, 51 and 52 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each 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 applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued 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 6 of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice