Ramu Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No.
of 2015 • Ramu Verma, son of Shri Ram Kumar Verma (wrongly mentioned as Ram Dular Verma in the rejection order), aged about 22 years, resident of village Nagpura, P.S. Ratanpur, Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Forest Division Officer, Beltara/Ratanpur Range, Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant MCRC No.
of 2015 • Ramvilash Verma, S/o. Jivrakhan Verma, aged 44 years, R/o. Nagpura, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Forest Department Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur ---- Non-applicant And MCRC No.
of 2015 • Shyamu Verma, son of Shri Ram Kumar Verma (wrongly mentioned as Ram Dular Verma in the rejection order), aged about 20 years, resident of village Nagpura, P.S. Ratanpur, Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Forest Division Officer, Beltara/Ratanpur Range, Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue
District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicants:
Mr. Indrasen Sahu, Advocate in M.Cr.C.
Nos. 4005/2015 & 4098/2015.
For Applicant:
Mr. Ajay Ayachi, Advocate in M.Cr.C.
No. 4101/2015.
For Non-applicant/State: Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board /0 8 /2015 Heard.
(1) Above mentioned bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. arise out of a common Crime No. POR Case No.11392/01, registered at Police Station Forest Division Beltara/Ratanpur Range, Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 39, 44 & 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this Common Order.
(2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicants are found in possession of cooked meat of wild pig, which is schedule 3, serial No. 119 animal under the Wild Life Protection Act.
(3) Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that applicants have been falsely been implicated in the offence in
question as no seizure has been made from them. They further would submit that the applicants are languishing in jail since 28/30.06.2015 and the substantial investigation has already been made and, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail. (4) On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail applications.
(5) Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case; further considering the punishment prescribed for the said offence under the Wild Life Protection Act; further considering their detention period; and the substantial investigation has already been made; this court is of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the applications are allowed.
(6) Accused/applicants namely Ramu Verma, Shyamu Verma & Ramvilash Verma are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-