Allowed

Sudhir Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jul 2024MCRC/3473/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed regular bail applications filed by four accused persons arrested for wildlife offences involving seizure of pangolin scales and animal bones. The court emphasized the absence of lab reports and prior record as reasons for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety in the like sum.

Sudhir Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 3473 of 2024

¶5

Sudhir Tiwari S/o Dhruv Tiwari, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Khudiya, Police Station And Tehsil Lormi And District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶6

---- applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Forest Range- Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

MCRC No. 3557 of 2024

¶11

Amankarikant S/o Tulsidas, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Khudiya, P.S. - Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶12

---- applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Staton House Officer (SHO), Police StationForest Range, Kota, District Bilaspur (.C.)

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

MCRC No. 4707 of 2024

¶17

Bharat S/o Rewaram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village-Kathmunda Maal, Police Station- Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶18

	---- applicant
Versus

¶19

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Range Officer, Forest Range, Kota, District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶20

---- Respondent

¶21

MCRC No. 4835 of 2024

¶22

Ramesh Singh Katlam S/o Manrakhan Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Khudiya, P.S. - Lormi, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- applicant

¶23

Versus

¶24

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Forest Range Kota, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

¶25

(cause title taken from CIS)

¶26

¶27

For Applicants	: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate (MCRC No. 3473/2024 and MCRC No. 4835/2024)
	Mr. Palash Jha, Advocate (MCRC No. 3557/ 2024)
	Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate (MCRC No. 4707/ 2024)
For Res./ State	: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, PL

¶28

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

¶29

Order on board

¶30

23.07.2024.

¶31

All these bail applications are arising out of the same crime number and the same offence and therefore they are being heard and decided together.

¶32

These are the first bail application before this Court filed by the applicants for grant of regular bail. The applicants have been arrested on 19/04/2024 in connection with Crime No. 17721 of 2004 registered at Forest Office, Forest Circle, Kota, DistBilaspur (CG) for the offence under Sections 9, 44, 48-A, 49-B, 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

¶33

As per the prosecution’s case, on 19/04/2024, the Forest Officers were in patrolling duty and checking the vehicles at Bilaspur- Kota main road, near C.V. Raman University at Kota, the Suzuki Ertiga Car bearing registration no. CG-10-BP-3346 was stopped and on being checked, 6 pieces of scales of Pangolin, one piece of canine teeth of wild animal, one piece of wild animal nail and bones of the wildlife animals have been seized. The present applicants Amankarikant, Bharat and Ramesh Singh Katlam were in the said car along with Rinku and Ankit. The offence has been registered and the applicant Amankarikant, Bharat and Ramesh Singh Katlam were arrested.

¶34

¶35

On their memorandum statement they disclosed the name of the applicant Sudhir Tiwari who is also involved in the offence and thereafter the applicant Sudhir Tiwari has also been arrested. During the investigation, the remains of leopard were also seized on the instance of the applicant Ramesh Kumar Katlam.

¶36

Learned counsels for the applicants would submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence. There is no lab test report that the seized articles belongs to the wild life animals. The offience is triable by Judicial Magistrate. The applicants are in jail since 19.04.2024. The applicants having no previous criminal antecedent of similar offence. The final adjudication of the case will take its own time. The two other co-accused persons namely Rinku and Ankit have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2024 in MCRC No. 3440/2024 and the case of the present applicants are similar to them. Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.

¶37

On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes. However, he would submits that as per the report submitted in the case diary there is having no criminal antecedent of the present applicants for offence of similar nature.

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the parties

¶39

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the body parts of the wild life animals allegedly seized from the applicants as also the evidence collected by the prosecution during the investigation with respect to the identification of the body parts of the wildlife animal, there is no lab test report and that the offences are triable by Judicial

¶40

¶41

Magistrate and the applicants are in jail since 19^th April, 2024, the applicants having no criminal antecedent and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, two other coaccused persons have been released on regular bail vide order dated 21.06.2024, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail.

¶42

Consequently, the bail applications filed by the applicants Sudhir Tiwari, Amankarikant, Bharat and Ramesh Singh Katlam, for grant of regular bail is hereby allowed. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, on following conditions:-

¶43

(i) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court

¶44

(ii) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶45

(iii) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial unless their personal presence is exempted by the trial Court.

¶46

(iv) They shall not repeat the offence.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶49

Sagrika

Sudhir Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Similar cases

Girdhari Bhausare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arjun Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lalita Bai Dhargawe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepanker Goshwami Vs State of Chhattisgarh