Hunting Tiger Not A Normal Offence, Poses Threat To Nature And Forests: Madhya Pradesh HC Denies Bail In Tiger Poaching Case
The Madhya Pradesh High Court denied bail in a tiger poaching case while observing that hunting wild animals like tigers in a planned manner cannot be treated as a normal offence as the same poses a threat to nature and forests.
The Bench dismissed the bail application of the accused booked under Sections 2(16), (36) read with Sections 9, 39, 44, 48(A), 49(B), 51, 52 and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (Amendment) 2022 (the Act) for allegedly hunting a tiger by installing electric wires. The accused were been detained since early August 2023 and remained in custody for nearly a year.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal observed, “The wild animal which has been hunted is of Schedule-I under the Wild Life Protection Act. The hunting of wild animal like tiger in a planned manner cannot be treated as a normal offence as same poses threat to nature and forests. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.”
Advocate Hemendra Singh Thakur appeared for the applicants, while Dy. AG A.R. Ben represented the respondent.
The case dates back to 2023 when the State Tiger Strike Force of Madhya Pradesh, acting based on the information received from an informer, encircled three individuals near the Amba Mai Waiting Room on Seoni-Katangi Road, State Highway No. 54.
However, they were able to apprehend only one person, the accused, who was found carrying a nylon bag containing 49 tiger bones, 14 nails, and 31 mustache hairs. Upon interrogation, the accused confessed to hunting the tiger alongside two co-accused by using electric wires connected to a power source.
The investigation led to the discovery of the tiger's carcass, along with nine pieces of GI pipe wires, allegedly used for hunting. The seized items were sent for DNA analysis, which confirmed that the remains belonged to a female tiger.
The accused argued that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was submitted that the seizure of the tiger parts was conducted without any independent witnesses. It was further contended that all the witnesses were from the Forest Department and they were members of the State Tiger Strike Force. Hence, in the absence of independent witnesses, the “story as put forth” could not be believed.
The High Court noted that the wild animal which was being hunted was under Schedule I of the Act, and therefore, hunting of such wild animals in a planned manner could not be treated as a normal offence.
Consequently, the Court denied bail to the accused and remarked that “it cannot be overlooked that applicants are in jail for last almost 11 months and some days, therefore, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from today.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Cause Title: Sunil Khandate & Ors v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
