High CourtsSingle Bench

Satish vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 19 August 2019 · Citation: (2019) 08 MP CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 — Section 2(5), 12(B), 15, 18, 29, 39, 35(D), 50, 51 · Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006 — Section 2(5), 12(B), 15, 18, 29, 39, 35(D), 50, 51
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 32065 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

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

16 paragraphs · 574 words

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is fourth bail application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail after rejection of earlier one which was rejected by order dated 07.05.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.15201/2019.

The applicant has been arrested on 30/01/2019 in connection with P.O.R. No.73/22 registered at Police Station Forest Department Game Range Karera Sanctuary, District Shivpuri for offence under Sections 2(5), 12(B), 15, 18, 29, 39, 35(D), 50, 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and Amendment Act, 2006.

As per prosecution story, on 30.01.2019, staff of Karera Sanctuary and Flying Squad of Madhav Rastriya Udhyan, Shivpuri, during the course of checking at the Fatehpur, saw one truck bearing No.MP33H-1476 coming from Fatehpur-Sunari near Mangala Mata Mandir. The truck was stopped and checked by the staff of forest, wherein sand was found. When staff asked about royalty, driver of the truck did not show the royalty slip. Thereafter, the said truck was seized. When the said seized truck was being brought, the applicant stopped the truck and misbehaved with the staff and obstructed in the official duty.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. The offence registered against the applicant is bailable. The applicant is in custody for last six months. This application has been filed after recording of the statements of the main prosecution witnesses. The maximum punishment prescribed is of three years. Co-accused person-Dinesh of the present crime has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is also similar to that the aforesaid co-accused person. The trial will take time to conclude and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. Under these circumstances, counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.

Considering the pretrial detention, the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.

This order will remain operative subject to the compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1.

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2.

The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3.

The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4.

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;

5.

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6.

The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

A copy of this order be sent for compliance as well as copy of the order be given to the learned Panel Lawyer with a direction to keep the same in the concerned case diary.

Certified copy as per rules.