Sunil Kumar Dhruw & ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 7990 of 2019

1. Sunil Kumar Dhruw S/o Ramnath Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Ramhepur (Bhimpuri), Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Jaleshwar Dhruw S/o Ramnath Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Ramhepur (Bhimpuri), Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Sushil Kumar Dhruw S/o Ramnath Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Ramhepur (Bhimpuri), Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicants

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Van Parikshetradhikari Bafar Zone Achanakmarg, Tiger Reserve Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicants :

Mr. Suresh Verma, Adv.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Akhtar Hussain, PL.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 28/01/2020

1. The accused/applicants have moved this first bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with P.R.O. No. 12705/2001 registered at Police Station-Van Parikshetradhikari Bafar Zone Achanakmarg, Tiger Reserve Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 2, 9, 39, 42 and 44 of Wild Life Protection Act.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.11.2019 the police received information by the informant that the present applicants has illegally hunted wild animal pig, thereafter, the antipoching

team of Tiger Reserve Achanakmaar received the information and searched the house of the present applicants and seized meat of pig, bones, hair, axe and horn of deer (chital) have been found. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the applicants are in jail since 19.11.2019, there is no likelihood of their case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicants may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, detention period of applicants and further considering the facts that the present applicants are in jail since 19.11.2019 and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

7. Accused/applicants are directed to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, with one local 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.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge H.L. Sahu