Dismissed

Sankar Sutradhar and Anr. v. State of Assam

Gauhati HC16 Dec 2021Bail Appln./3226/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a bail application filed by two accused charged with endangering Schedule-I species (pangolin) under the Wildlife Protection Act. The court held that the investigation was incomplete and the statutory pre-conditions for bail had not been met.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; Case Diary returned to the investigating authorities.

Sankar Sutradhar and Anr. Vs State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010186902021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./3226/2021

¶5

SANKAR SUTRADHAR AND ANR. S/O SRI RAKHAN SUTRADHAR R/O BHABANIPUR P.O. TITAGURI P.S. AND DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTC, ASSAM

¶6

2: SRI MITHISULA BASUMATARY SON OF SRI BISWANATH BASUMATARY R/O VILL- CHARAIKHOLA P.O. CHARAIKHOLA P.S. AND DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTC ASSA VERSUS

¶7

STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶11

ORDER

¶12

16-12-2021

¶13

Heard Shri I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

namely, 1.Shri Sankar Sutradhar and 2.Shri Mithisula Basumatary, who have filed this bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC praying for bail in connection with OR Case No.RR/28 dated 21.10.2021 under Sections 9/27/29/31/39/44(1)(a) punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioners were arrested on 22.10.2021.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioners that they are in detention for the last 54 days and further custodial detention may not be necessary. It is further submitted that the default period is 60 days and the investigation is not yet over.

¶17

On the other hand, Shri D. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, has submitted that the present case may not be a fit one for grant of bail at this stage.

¶18

He submits that the subject involved is pangolin which is an endangered species under Schedule-I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. He further submits that the Case Diary would reveal that the petitioners have themselves made statement under Section 50(8)(b) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, admitting their involvement.

¶19

By referring to the said provision of law, the learned Standing Counsel submits that such statements are at par with statements made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and are admissible as evidence.

¶20

As regards the other contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners regarding the default period, the learned Standing

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

Counsel has placed before this Court a notification of 19.10.2010, whereby an amendment was done so far as the State of Assam is concerned, being the Wild Life (Protection) (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009, by which, the Section 51 has been amended to include even areas outside the boundary and the punishment has been enhanced to 7 years from 3 years and 10 years from 7 years including enhancement of the fine. The learned Standing Counsel further referring to Section 51(b) of the Amended Act submits that there are conditions imposed before consideration of a prayer of bail which includes the condition of a Court coming to a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused are not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶23

It is submitted that the investigation being on, it would be too early to release the petitioners on bail before ascertaining the fulfilment of the conditions imposed by Section 51(b).

¶24

Shri Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would not be involved in commission of any offence in the future.

¶25

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the Case Diary including the statements made under Section 50(8) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (as amended), this Court is of the view that there is paradigm shift in treating of forest offence and the same appears to be towards treating the same in a very serious manner. As submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, the involvement in the present case is a species mentioned in Schedule-I which is endangered. This Court has also

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

noticed that the amendment which brings in the pre-conditions for consideration of a bail is almost at par with those contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Though Shri Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioners have made a statement that the petitioners would not indulge in any such activities in the future, such undertaking could not have much relevance as it is for the Court to be satisfied of there being reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Such satisfaction can be arrived at from the materials collected by the Investigation Agency after completion of the investigation which is yet to be complete.

¶28

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioners and accordingly the petition stands dismissed.

¶29

The Case Diary is returned back to the learned Standing Counsel, Forest.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Sankar Sutradhar and Anr. v. State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankar Sutradhar and Anr. v. State of Assam

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

Jugeswar Nath Vs P.K.Buragohain

Guneswari Deka Kalita and 4 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Ajmat Ali and 6 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Manish Kumar Singh Vs the Union of India

New Tech Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Siddheswar Rabha Vs the State of Assam