AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 205 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 85 of 2024, under Sections 39, 50, 51, 9, 48 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, 27.06.2024, elephant tusk was recovered from the possession of the applicant and the co-accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no independent witness; there is no expert report confirming that the allegedly recovered article was elephant tusk; the applicant has no criminal history.
Learned State counsel admits that there is no expert opinion at this stage. But, he would submit that the elephant tusk was recovered from the possession of the applicant. He also admits that the applicant has no criminal history.
Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned