Ramesh Ram And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Revisionists-accused persons were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 vide judgment dated 19.11.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Gairsain, District Chamoli in Criminal Case No.52 of 2017.

Against the said judgment, an Appeal (Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2019) was filed. The said Appeal has been dismissed on 30.09.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnprayag, District Chamoli.

Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate, contended that the alleged leopard skin was not recovered from the possession of the revisionists. The cognizance was taken on the basis of the charge-sheet, filed by the Investigating Officer. The revisionists had taken plea before the Appellate Court that a complaint should be filed in view of Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, of 1972 . In the present case, there is total non-compliance of Section 50(4) and Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Admit.

List on 14.02.2024.

Heard on the Bail Application (IA No. 01 of 2022).

Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate, contended that the revisionists were on bail during the trial and appeal, and, the conditions of bail were never misused nor violated by them.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the revisionists Ramesh Ram and Diwan Singh Patwal.

Let the revisionists be released on bail on their executing personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.