Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 498 (RAJ)

Kamlendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2009-02-16

K.S.CHAUDHARI, K.S.RATHORE

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Anurag Sharma and Mr. G.S. Shekahwat Advocates on behalf of the applicant Kamlendra Singh pertaining to F.I.R. No. 387/08 of police station Mansarovar in the offence under Section 9/51 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1972'). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that Investigating Officer of Mansarovar police station intends to arrest him in the offence under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Act, 1972. One Hide of Chhetal is alleged to have been recovered from the room which is said to be in the possession of the petitioner whereas, Section 9 contemplates that "No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided under section 11 and section 12." There is not even a shred of evidence on record which may lead to infer that the petitioner was ever found hunting of Chhetal. Mere possession of Hide of Cheetal does not constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Act, 1972. He apprehends his arrest in the instant case, hence, he may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail in this case. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this bail application primarily on the ground that the petitioner is to be interrogated and thereafter, it is to be ascertained as to how did he hunt the Chhetal and how did he extract the Hide of Cheetal and from where it was brought by him. Hence, the petitioner may be denied bail. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that not a shred of evidence with regard to hunting of Cheetal is available on record. The arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appears to be totally funny, imaginary and having no base to stand. It seems to be very surprising that first police registers a case in the offence under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Act, 1972 and thereafter creates the evidence so as to constitute the offences under Section 9 of the Act 1972. It seems to be very surprising that first police registers a case in the offence under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Act, 1972 and thereafter creates the evidence so as to constitute the offences under Section 9 of the Act 1972. The provisions of Cr.P.C. do not contemplate such funny and arbitrary procedure of investigation. The conduct of the Investigating Officer seems tantamount to put the cart before the camel, which the provisions of Cr.P.C. do not warrant. Hence, I without expressing any opinion on merits, I fee to allow the petition.The SHO/I.O. Of the Police Station Mansarovar is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Kamlendra Singh S/o. Shri Hanuman Singh in FIR No. 387/08 registered for offence under Section 9/51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, he shall enlarge him on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required: (ii) He 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 facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (iv) He will not commit any offence during the period of bail. Bail Allowed. *******