By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Forest Offence Report No.WL-08-2024 (also registered as WL-61-2024), for offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 48 and 48A read with 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

25 November 2024

¶17

Mamta Kale. 30-aba-3094-2024.docx

¶18

The gravamen of the indictment is as follows: On 10 November 2024, based on confidential information received, a raid was carried out at Flat No.806 in the B wing of the Savanna Building near Experia Mall, Dombivli, Thane. The search uncovered the captive state of six ball pythons, a golden child retic, three striped mud turtles, an Indian star turtle, a marmoset monkey, and an iguana. These animals were subsequently seized, leading to the registration of the crime.

¶19

Dr Sujay Kantawala, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, contends that the respondents’ officers forcibly entered a premises without legal authorisation, which the applicant neither owns nor occupies. The applicant was not present during the alleged search, and the animals in question do not belong to him. Emphasising the applicant’s innocence, the learned Counsel submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigation and comply with any conditions set by this Court.

¶20

On the other hand, Ms Supriya Kak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents, opposing the request for pre-arrest bail, contends that the offence is serious as the applicant’s former wife licensed the

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

25 November 2024

¶23

Mamta Kale. 30-aba-3094-2024.docx

¶24

flat, and the applicant attested the leave and license agreement as a witness. The learned APP submits that if the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

¶25

This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival submissions canvassed across the Bar and perused the records.

¶26

The primary allegations against the applicant involve capturing six ball pythons, a golden child retic, three striped mud turtles, an Indian star turtle, a marmoset monkey, and an iguana on a specified premises, allegedly violating the Act. From a cursory reading of Schedule I of the Act, it appears that the Indian star turtle does not form part of this Schedule, and the other animals are included in Appendix I to Schedule I. Under Section 51 of the Act, this violation is punishable for imprisonment for a term upto three years, a fine extended to Rs.1 lakh, or both. It is acknowledged that the applicant was not present during the alleged raid. Upon a perusal of the records, particularly, the leave and license agreement of the premises, it appears that the applicant was neither the owner nor the licensee of the premises. The applicant merely attested to the document as a witness, which in itself does not suggest his involvement in the crime. At this stage, the material on

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

25 November 2024

¶29

Mamta Kale. 30-aba-3094-2024.docx

¶30

record does not prima facie incriminate the applicant in the present crime. Additionally, the animals have been seized and it is reported that the animals have been relocated as required by law. The prosecution’s apprehension about evidence tampering and witness influence can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the following order:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) In the event of the applicant’s arrest in connection with Forest Offence Report No.WL-08-2024 (also registered as WL-612024), he shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶33

(ii) The applicant shall attend the office of the concerned investigating authority as and when required.

¶34

(iii) The applicant, himself or through any other person, would not indulge in any activity that may tamper with the evidence

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

25 November 2024

¶37

Mamta Kale. 30-aba-3094-2024.docx

¶38

or influence any witnesses.

¶39

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

¶41

Page 5 of 5

¶42

25 November 2024

Faizan Khan v. Assistant Chief Conservator of Forests and Anr.

What the court decided

Faizan Khan v. Assistant Chief Conservator of Forests and Anr.

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindar Harishchandra Pawar vs State of Maharashtra

Nisha Davashish Ghosh vs Farida Jamal Ansari

Padmasinh Bajirao Patil vs Central Bureau Investigation and Anr.

Seema Purushotam Dhuri vs State of Maharashtra

Naseema @ Naseembao Shafeequl Haq vs State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Balkrishna Kanvinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.