Vijay Kumar Bheel vs The State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—Heard learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material made available to me during the arguments of the case.

Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was arrested for committing offence under Sections 9, 27, 29, 50 and 51 of the wild Life (Protection) Act. The maximum sentence wherefor is three years, it is contended that the recovery has already been made. Challan has already been filed. There is no previous case against the petitioner. Petitioner is accused of hunting the birds. The area in which the hunting activity is alleged to have been made, is not a wild Life Century, but a normal forest.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to release the accused-petitioner, namely, vijay Kumar Bheel Son of Shri Rugnath on bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No. 44-53/2010, Police Station Forest Department Range Akberpur, Alwar, under Sections 9, 27, 29, 50 and 51 of the wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

However, in case the petitioner is again found indulging in similar or any other offence at any point of time in future, the bail granted to him by this Court in the present case would be liable to be cancelled at the instance of the prosecution on this ground alone and stipulation to this effect shall be inserted in the bail bonds produced by the petitioner, and the sureties to be produced in support thereof shall be verified by the Tehsildar of the area concerned.

The bail application stands disposed of.