AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. K. Panigrahi, J
This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner being in custody in connection with 2(b)CC No.01 of 2021 on the file of JMFC., Daspalla for the alleged commission of offence for
violation of Rules 9,27,39(d) and 43 of Wife Life Prot ection Act, 1972 and punishable un der Section 51 of the said Act, h as prayed for his release on
bail.
It is alleged that while the staff of Banigochha (West) Wildlife Range were on patrolling over Khurdha-Bolan gir NH-57, they found one auto
rickshaw bearing Regd. No.OD-12B-8700 coming from Daspalla side towards Banigochha. Having suspected, they stopped the vehicle. During
course of checking of the auto rickshaw, it w as found that one afresh hunted wild pig was in the auto rickshaw covering with a jari basta. On dem
and, the accused could not produce any documents like R.C. B ook of the auto rickshaw. The Forester Banigochha seized the afr esh hunted wild pit
(Sus-Scrofa) and one jari basta along with th e auto rickshaw. There is enough room to kconnect the complicity of the petitioner in the hunting down
wild animal and the offence committed is a punishable offence under the Wild Life Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person. He has been falsely implicated in this case by the police and the
petitioner is not the owner of the auto rickshaw. It is also submitted that the petitioner have no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the
allegation as stated in the F.I.R are o mnibus in nature. The petitioner is in custody since 1. 1.2021.
Learned counsel for the State while vehemently objecting to the prayer of the petitioner for release on bail submit s that the female wild pig (Su s-
Scrofa) has been seized from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is mandatory for e very transporter not to transp ort wild life product
without proper permission. Here the petitioner could not show any such permission.
Considering the facts and circumstances of th e case, nature of allegations, g ravity of the offences , I am not inclined to release the petitioner on
bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner sta nds rejected.
The Bail A pplication is dismissed.
As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for t he petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High
Court’s website or print ou t thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vid e Court’s Notice No.4587 date d 25.3.2020.