Lalneisung Laltlanthang Hmar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Forest Office Ajura Tal Rajura Dist Chandrapur

2025:BHC-NAG:8689

467 ba686.25

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.686/2025 Lalneisung Laltlanthang Hmar

¶6

..vs..

¶7

State of Maharashtra, thr.Forest Office Rajura, Taluka Rajura, District Chandrapur

¶8

............................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶9

Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Counsel for the Applicant. Mrs.M.A.Barabde, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶10

CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
 CLOSED ON: 12/08/2025
 PRONOUNCED ON : 03/09/2025

¶11

By this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with POR No.08893/222322 registered with the non-

¶12

applicant/police station for offences under Sections 2, 9,
31, 50, and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

¶13

2.The applicant came to be arrested on
31.1.2025 and since then he is in jail.

¶14

The crime is registered on the basis of

¶15

.....2/-

¶16

467 ba686.25

¶17

¶18

complaint by the Sub Divisional Officer, Forest
Department. As per his complaint, on 25.1.2025, the
Cyber Cell of the Melghat Tiger Reserve received Credible
Intelligence Inputs regarding the presence of a Group of
Bahellas – a Community traditionally associated with
hunting suspected to be involved in illegal wildlife
poaching activities. These individuals were reportedly
operating in the forest areas near Rajura and were
believed to have links with the Katni Region of Madhya
Pradesh. On the basis of the said information, the forest
authorities were patrolling in the said region. During the
patrolling, Beat Guard Maroti Annaji Chapale of Chunala
Beat, Rajura Range came across an unidentified individual
within the forest premises. During enquiry with him, he
disclosed his identity as Ajeet Siyalal Pardhi, a native of
Nittara Village, Rithi Taluka, Katni District, Madhya
Pradesh. A search conducted by the forest officials at a
tent site in Chunala Village, Rajura Taluka, Chandrapur
District, led to recovery of weapons typically used for

¶19

.....3/-

¶20

467 ba686.25

¶21

¶22

hunting tigers and tools for de-skinning and other
incriminating articles. Some of the persons managed to
flee away from the site, but several were apprehended
and brought to the Range Office for preliminary
interrogation. During the investigation, it revealed that
the said persons were Professional Wildlife Poachers. One
of accused persons Ajeet Pardhi was identified as habitual
wildlife offender and illegal trader in animal articles and
several cases are pending against him. During
interrogation, said accused Ajeet Pardhi confessed his
involvement in tiger hunting within Rajura Range. It
further revealed that modus operandiadopted by the
gang after killing the tigers, the group would de-skin, bury
the bones and meat in concealed pits, and accelerate
decomposition using edible salt. The cured tiger skins
wold then be air-dried and subjected to a primitive
tanning process inside their tents or hutments.
Thereafter, the trophies would be transported initially to

¶23

Assam and subsequently to Shillong and handed over

¶24

.....4/-

¶25

467 ba686.25

¶26

¶27

them to the present applicant who belongs to Shillong and
investigation papers reveal that he received money
through NEFT and/or in cash. On the basis of the said
investigation, the crime was registered against the
applicant and he was arrested on 30.1.2025.

¶28

Heard learned counsel Shri S.V.Sirpurkar for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.M.A.Barabde for the State.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as far as involvement of the applicant is concerned, the same is merely on the basis of statement of co-accused which is not admissible. The confession recorded of the accused is not voluntary confession and, therefore, it cannot be acted upon. Nothing is seized from the applicant.

¶30

He further raised a ground that grounds of
arrest are not communicated to the applicant or his
relatives and, therefore, there is non-compliance and

¶31

.....5/-

¶32

467 ba686.25

¶33

¶34

violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The
investigation is already completed and chargesheet is
already filed. Further incarceration of the applicant is not
required. He has submitted written submissions, which
are taken into consideration.

¶35

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on following decisions:

¶36

1. Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr, reported in (2025)5 SCC 799, and

¶37

2. Criminal Revision Application No.174/2016
(Yogesh @ Yograj S/o. Sakharam
Kumbhare vs. State of Maharashtra, through
Range Forest Officer, Sakoli, District Bhandara)
decided by this court on 5.10.2023.

¶38

Per contra, learned APP submitted that during

¶39

the investigation, connection between the applicant and co-

¶40

accused Ajeet Pardhi was revealed. The applicant has
transferred the amount in the account of co-accused Ajeet

¶41

Pardhi in the Bank of Baroda, which reveals from the bank
statement. During the investigation, CDRs are also

¶42

.....6/-

¶43

467 ba686.25

¶44

¶45

collected which show that the applicant is in contact with
other accused and it further show that the applicant has
visited Guwahati from Shillong for receiving the material
from the co-accused. The statements of the applicant and
co-accused Ning San Lun and her husband Kaplian Mung
were recorded under Section 50(8)(D) of the Wildlife
Protection Act, which are admissible, from which it reveals
that involvement of the applicant is in selling tiger skin,
bones, teeth to Ning San Lun. The investigation further
shows that co-accused Ning San Lun has visited the house
of the applicant whereat he stored tiger skin, bones, and
teeth. The applicant has also transferred some amount to
co-accused Ajeet Pardhi and his associates. Thus,
involvement of the applicant revealed during the
investigation. His involvement is also revealed in illegal
trade of body parts of the tigers. In view of the prima facie
material available, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶46

After hearing both the sides and perusing

¶47

.....7/-

¶48

467 ba686.25

¶49

¶50

investigation papers collected during the investigation, it
reveals that co-accused Ajeet Pardhi was revealed to be
involved in poaching of tigers and, therefore, he was
arrested. During the investigation, the interrogation was
carried out and the names of the applicant and other co-
accused are revealed. Therefore, their statements are
recorded under Section 50(8)(D) of the said Act by the
Sub Divisional Officer, Forest Department, which is in the
nature of confessional statements. Besides the
confessional statements, the statements accounts of co-
accused Ajeet Pardhi and the applicant were collected and
it was revealed that the applicant received cash amount
and transferred the amounts to co-accused Ajeet Pardhi.
Thus, there were monetary transactions between them.
The statements of accounts show that time to time huge
amounts are withdrawn by the applicant. The statements
of account further show that huge amounts are received
by the applicant in his account time to time. There are

¶51

entries in the statements of accounts showing transfer of

¶52

.....8/-

¶53

467 ba686.25

¶54

¶55

amounts in the account of co-accused.

¶56

Thus, the connection between the applicant and other co-accused reveals from the investigation papers. The statements of the applicant and co-accused Ning San Lun and her husband Kaplian Mung were recorded under Section 50(8)(D) of the Wildlife Protection Act.

¶57

Thus, material collected during the

¶58

investigation show involvement of the applicant in the
alleged offence.

¶59

The investigating agency placed reliance on confessional statements of the applicant and the coaccused.

¶60

An important aspect, as regards admissibility and proof of confessional statements of applicants, on which the prosecution placed reliance, shows that confessional statements made before competent officers.

¶61

As provided under Section 50(8) of the said Act, which is

¶62

.....9/-

¶63

467 ba686.25

¶64

¶65

admissible in evidence, in view of the provision of Sub
section 9 of Section 50 of the Act, the said provision is an
exception to the general Rule.

¶66

It is well settled law that confession made by accused during custody under Section 50(8) of the said Act, must be voluntary and truthful.

¶67

Only fact needs to be seen is, whether confessional statement is voluntary or not. A confessional statement is said to be voluntary if it is not caused by threat, inducement, torture or pressure. Before recording confessional statements, concerned officer is required to

¶68

make an enquiry to ascertain whether the accused is
under pressure, threat or inducement and why accused
intends to make confession. The officer is required to give
an understanding that he is not bound to make confession
and despite such a warning, if he makes a confession, it
could be used as an evidence against him in trial. The
competent officer, before recording confession, is required

¶69

.....10/-

¶70

467 ba686.25

¶71

¶72

on satisfying himself/herself that accused has made up his
mind to confess crime committed by him/her.

¶73

The co-ordinate bench, in Criminal Revision Application No.174/2016 (Yogesh @ Yograj s/o Sakharam Kumbhare and ors vs. State) decided on 5.10.2023 held that statement recorded by the forest officers fall in the category of extra judicial confession and the same is admissible in evidence, provided the same is made voluntarily and there is other evidence to corroborate facts disclosed in the confession.

¶74

In the backdrop of the above well settled provisions, it is to be borne in mind that the said Act has its object. The provisions under the said Act need to be borne in mind.

¶75

The confessional statement of co-accused Ajeet Pardhi shows that during the interrogation, he made voluntary statement though he was informed that the said statement can be used against him and he can be

¶76

.....11/-

¶77

467 ba686.25

¶78

¶79

punished on the basis of the statement. He disclosed his
desire to make statement.

¶80

From the said statement, involvement of the applicant is revealed in trading of body parts of the tigers. It further revealed that the said co-accused was receiving amounts from the applicant after trading of the said body parts of the tigers.

¶81

The statement of the applicant was also recorded to whom also understanding was given that the statement can be used against him. Thereafter, he disclosed his desire to make voluntary statement. From his statement, it reveals that he was acquainted with coaccused Ajeet Pardhi and Mrs.Ning San Lun. The statement further reveals that after retirement, he was looking for alternate source of income and he took a vehicle loan to buy a truck. He is suffering from financial crisis. He came in contact with his friend Johny and on the say of his friend, he entered into trading of tigers’ skin

¶82

.....12/-

¶83

467 ba686.25

¶84

¶85

and bones. He was informed that some persons including
woman and children are involved in selling skin and
bones and they are looking for prospective buyers. He
agreed to do the said work and, therefore, his friend
introduced him to Rajkumar. Said Rajkumar visited place
near Kamakhya Railway Station where the party met them
and showed skin and bones of tigers. He communicated
with several persons for purchasing tigers’ parts. He came
in contact with Mrs.Ning San Lun who visited his house
to whom he has shown consignment of tigers’ parts and
she agreed to buy the same for Rs.7.00 lacs. Thus, he
came in profession of trading of tigers’ body parts. He
received two more tiger sets from Rajkumar in 2019 and
the same was resold by him to co-accused Mrs.Ning San
Lun. His statement further reveals that subsequently he
came in contact with the co-accused Ajeet Pardhi and
others and he received tigers’ body parts from them and
he paid transaction amount to them by transferring the

¶86

said amounts. His statements disclosed that he had

¶87

.....13/-

¶88

467 ba686.25

¶89

¶90

received several calls from Chandrapur and he traded
upto 40-50 tigers in last 5-6 years.

¶91

Thus, the statement of the applicant discloses involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime of trading of the tigers’ body parts. As far as involvement of the applicant in trading is concerned, sufficient material is brought on record by the investigating agency.

¶92

The chargesheet shows that a specific role is played by the applicant. The statements of applicants and co-accused are voluntary and recorded after following due process of law. The crimes of killing the wild animals are committed for economic/financial gains. The statement of account of the applicant discloses that huge amounts are received by him in his account.

¶93

As far as his statement is concerned, the same shows that initially he was serving in the Indian Army in Assam Regiment from 1993-2015 and retired early as Hawaldar due to medical reasons. If the account

¶94

.....14/-

¶95

467 ba686.25

¶96

¶97

statement of the applicant is considered, the balance
amounts shown in his account are in crores. The balance
amount in his account on 30.11.2024 was of
Rs.13,70,00,603.92. Admittedly, nothing is on record to
show that he has other sources of income to have such a
huge amount in his account. His statement itself shows
that he has looking for the alternative source of income.
There is no explanation as to the huge amount in his
account though he retired as Hawaldar from the Indian
Army.

¶98

Another ground raised in the applicant is that, the grounds of arrest are not communicated to him. Admittedly, after the applicant was arrested, he was represented by a Lawyer before the court when he was firstly produced. He has not demonstrated as to how prejudice is caused to him by non-communication of grounds of arrest.

¶99

The said aspect is recently considered by the

¶100

.....15/-

¶101

467 ba686.25

¶102

¶103

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Criminal Appeal
Nos.3528-3534/2025 (State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan

¶104

Etc.) decided 14.8.2025 and held as under:

¶105

“20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution
mandates that “no person who is arrested shall
be detained in custody without being informed,
as soon as may be, of the grounds for such
arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to
consult, and to be defended by, a legal
practitioner of his choice”. Similarly, Section
50(1) Cr.P.C. requires that “every police officer
or other person arresting any person without
warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full
particulars of the offence for which he is
arrested or other grounds for such arrest.

¶106

20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory
framework thus mandates that the arrested
person must be informed of the grounds of
arrest – but neither provision prescribes a
specific form or insists upon written
communication in every case. Judicial
precedents have clarified that substantial
compliance with these requirements is sufficient,
unless demonstrable prejudice is shown.

¶107

20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it
was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if
the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds
in substance, even if not conveyed in writing.
Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh, it was observed that when

¶108

.....16/-

¶109

467 ba686.25

¶110

¶111

arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out
the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance.
Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify
that written, individualised grounds are not an
inflexible requirement in all circumstances.

¶112

20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory,
the consistent judicial approach has been to
adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining
alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of
written grounds does not ipso facto render the
arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable
prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to
defend.

¶113

20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos
and remand records clearly reflect that the
respondents were aware of the reasons for their
arrest. They were legally represented from the
outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest,
evidencing an immediate and informed
understanding of the accusations. No material
has been placed on record to establish that any
prejudice was caused due to the alleged
procedural lapse. In the absence of
demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is,
at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself,
warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the
High Court treated it as a determinative factor
while overlooking the gravity of the charge
under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a
prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal
and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those
decisions turned on materially different facts
and statutory contexts. The approach adopted
here is inconsistent with the settled principle

¶114

.....17/-

¶115

467 ba686.25

¶116

¶117

that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of
arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render
custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail.

¶118

The Hon’ ble Apex Court in the case of Vihan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr, Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.13320/2024 decided on 7.2.2025, by referring its earlier decisions in the cases of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and ors, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024)8 SCC 254 culled out following conclusions:

¶119

a) The requirement of informing a person
arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory
requirement of Article 22(1);

¶120

 b) The information of the grounds of arrest
must be provided to the arrested person in such
a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic
facts constituting the grounds is imparted and
communicated to the arrested person effectively
in the language which he understands. The

¶121

.....18/-

¶122

467 ba686.25

¶123

¶124

mode and method of communication must be
such that the object of the constitutional
safeguard is achieved;

¶125

c) When arrested accused alleges non-
compliance with the requirements of Article
22(1), the burden will always be on the
Investigating Officer/Agency to prove
compliance with the requirements of Article
22(1);

¶126

 d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a
violation of the fundamental rights of the
accused guaranteed by the said Article.
Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the
right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance
with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates
the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders
passed by a criminal court of remand are also

¶127

.....19/-

¶128

¶129

467 ba686.25

¶130

vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate
the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at
the same time, filing of chargesheet will not
validate a breach of constitutional mandate
under Article 22(1);

¶131

e) When an arrested person is produced before a
Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of
the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance
with Article 22(1) and other mandatory
safeguards has been made; and

¶132

f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is
established, it is the duty of the court to
forthwith order the release of the accused. That
will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory
restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The
statutory restrictions do not affect the power of
the court to grant bail when the violation of
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is

¶133

.....20/-

¶134

467 ba686.25

¶135

¶136

established.

¶137

Considering the prima facie material against

¶138

the applicant, the application deserves to be rejected and
the same is rejected.

¶139

Application stands disposed of.

¶140

 (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶141

!! BrWankhede !!

¶142

...../-

Lalneisung Laltlanthang Hmar v. the State of Maharashtra through Forest Office Ajura Tal Rajura Dist Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalneisung Laltlanthang Hmar v. the State of Maharashtra through Forest Office Ajura Tal Rajura Dist Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna S/O Dhanraj Bhusum Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Sirajgaon Tq. Achalpur Dist. Amravati

Kalpita Kumar Kinkhede Vs the State of Maharashtra

Govind Vijay Kambale Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Digras Ps, Tah. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal and Anr.

Sheikh Salim Sheikh Gafur vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Pso Ps Umarkhed Dist Yavatmal

Ramesh Jagdeo Pale vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ural-Ps, Akola and Anr.

Sanjay S/O Waman Pawar vs Sau. Madhuri W/O Sanjay Pawar