Ramkailash Bhuritiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court 31 Aug 2018 Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 5559 Of 2018 (2018) 08 CHH CK 0387
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 5559 Of 2018

Hon'ble Bench

P. Sam Koshy, J

Advocates

Shivendy Pandya, Astha, Shukla

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred
  • Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 - Section 9, 39, 50, 51

Judgement Text

Translate:

P. Sam Koshy, J

1. This is the first bail application seeking for grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 12.05.2018 in connection with Crime No. (POR No.)

15794/2004 registered at Forest Range, Janakpur, PS Janakpur, Distt. Korea for the offence punishable under Sections 9,39,50 and 51 of the Wild Life

Protection Act, 1972.

2. The allegation as per prosecution is that, the applicant is said to have killed Leopard in village Badvahi, PS Janakpur. The case of the prosecution is

that, on the previous day the Leopard is said to have killed one cow of the present applicant and co-accused in the forest and therefore to take

revenge, the applicant and co-accused is said to have placed some poison on the meat of the cow which the Leopard is said to have came and ate in

the night and thereafter died. Later on, the applicant is said to have destroyed the evidence by throwing away the poisonous meat and also burnt to

body of Leopard in the forest.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that except for the memorandum statement there is no evidence whatsoever collected by the prosecution

against the present applicant with which he could be implicated in the instant case. Further, the co-accused has already been granted bail by this court

in MCRC No.4443 of 2018 on 06.07.2018, the nature of allegations are identical in nature, and therefore, the present applicant may also be released

on bail.

4. The State counsel however opposes the application on the ground that present applicant is said to have killed one of the protected animal of the

forest and that there is a memorandum statement where he has admitted his guilt.

5. Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case particularly taking note of the fact that there is no evidence collected by the prosecution

with which it can be said that the allegations which have been levelled could be prima facie established. Moreover, except of the seizure of the some

portion of the bones of animal, there does not appear to be any concrete evidence collected in the course of evidence to show that the said animal was

poisoned and got killed by way of poisoning. Further, the co-accused has already been granted bail by this court and therefore this Court is of the

opinion that the present is a fit case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail.

6. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a

sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for appearance as and when directed.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Questions Multiplex Food Prices: “₹100 for Water, ₹700 for Coffee”
Nov
05
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Questions Multiplex Food Prices: “₹100 for Water, ₹700 for Coffee”
Read More
Delhi High Court Upholds Landlord Heirs’ Rights, Orders Eviction of Sub-Tenants in Ownership Dispute
Nov
05
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Upholds Landlord Heirs’ Rights, Orders Eviction of Sub-Tenants in Ownership Dispute
Read More