Allowed

Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024/131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court allowed bail application of accused Babu under Wild Life (Protection) Act. Court noted recovery of endangered species but imposed personal bond with two sureties and conditions against witness tampering, granted cooperation in trial, and prohibition of future criminal activity.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with witnesses and committing future crimes.

Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1749

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 131 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Babu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Nripendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that she has procured necessary instructions in the matter.

¶7

Heard Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Babu for grant of bail, in Range Case No. 16/23-24, under Sections 9/51, 27/51, 29/51, 39/51,49B/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, Range- Kakraha, District Bahraich, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant has been summoned on the basis of a complaint filed by the Forest Department alleging therein that they have apprehended the applicant on 8.9.2023 and 5 snakes of endangered species were also recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that the said complaint is nothing but the result of established enmity between him and the forest officials/officers. Elaborating further, it is submitted that the village of the applicant is at the outskirt of the reserve forest and as the applicant failed to fulfill illegal demands of the forest officials/officers, he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶11

It is further submitted that the preparation of the recovery/seizure memo and arrest of the applicant appears to be in house procedure of the Forest Department as at first, no independent witness has been attempted to procure and the seizure memo has not been placed before any magistrate without delay which falsifies the whole prosecution story.

¶12

It is next submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 9.9.2023 without any criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from

¶13

the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant and submits that the applicant is an accused of committing heinous offence and the recovery of 5 snakes of endangered species have also been made from his possession.

¶15

Perusal of the record in the background of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties would reveal that the applicant is shown to have been apprehended along with five snakes of endangered species on 8.9.2023 at 5.30 pm. All the witnesses of the recovery are forest officials/officers and attention of this Court has been drawn towards the seizure memo, a copy of which has been placed as Annexure-1 to the bail application wherein apart from the narration that the applicant has been apprehended along with five snakes of endangered species, the said seizure memo/arresting memo has not been presented before a magistrate or any higher officials/officers of the Department without delay. Admittedly, the applicant has no criminal antecedents except the instant one. Presence of the applicant may be secured by placing adequate conditions. The trial of the offences charged against the applicant may take some time having regard to the pendency before the trial court.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the facility of bail may be extended to the applicant. Thus, the bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the accused/applicant- Babu involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and

¶23

sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 Shravan

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P.

Rabia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Arun Awasthi vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Virendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Abhisek Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.