1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRI.APPLICATIONS (APPP) NO.913 & 914 both of 2010 in CRIMINAL APPLICATION Nos.1319 & 1325 BOTH OF 2010 ( Vandan Krushnarao Mohod & Dr.Abhijit Bhagwantrao Motghare vs. State of Maharashtra) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S.D. Dharmadhikari,Sr.Counsel with Shri S J Khandalkar, & Mr R M Patwardhan, Advocates for applicants in mainb applications Mrs. A R Taiwade,APP for Respondent-State Mrs.Rachna Wasnik,Advocate ( to assist prosecution) ` CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 13 th September, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, at length. 2. Criminal Application Nos. 913 and 914 both of 2010 for assisting the prosecution, filed by Advocate Mrs. Rachana Wasnik, are allowed. 3. In Criminal Application No.1319/2010, the benefit of interim anticipatory bail was granted on 23.8.2010 as learned APP had sought time to file reply and the applicant was apprehending his arrest in connection with Cr. No. 5178/2010 reported at Sitabuldi Police Station Nagpur, for various offences punishable under sections of the Wildlife Protection Act etc. 2 4. In Criminal Application No. 1325/2010 the applicant too was granted interim anticipatory bail on 24.8.2010. 5. Today, reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent -State. It is submitted orally by the learned APP on instructions (from Mr P B Thombre, Police Inspector, who is present in the Court) that statements of most of the witnesses have been recorded and custodial interrogation may not be necessary; while in written reply, it appears that objection has been taken on the ground that custodial interrogation is necessary but no reason is forthcoming as to why deers and emus were not sent for post-mortem instead they were buried without undergoing procedure prescribed. 6. On behalf of the Intervenor -Karishma Govind Galani, learned Advocate Mrs Rachna Wasnik sought to oppose grant of bail vociferously on the ground that the intervenor- Smt. K.S.Galani, Hon.Animal Welfare Officer was, in fact, assigned the work to assist the Committee by the Principal Bench of Bombay High Court and the Committee is constituted to monitor animal welfare laws in State of Maharashtra. According to her, the applicants were casual, cursory and callous in not protecting the animals which were buried and that they have contravened the provisions due to their negligence in performing their boundened duties. 7. Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant in Cri. Appln.No. 1319/2010 submitted that the applicant 3 Shri Vandan Mohod is a Professor in Botany and merely an administrative Incharge; whereas the Zoo in-charge is a Veterinary Doctor who has to take care of the health of animals and also to follow the procedure according to law in case of death of animals occurs in the Zoo. In other words, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant who is an Associate Dean that he is not directly responsible but he came to know from the print media about the death of animals and their burial. The applicant swiftly started enquiry, he being an administrative controller. As such, it is contended that there is no criminal intention on his part to commit any offence or to contravene any provisions as pleaded in the reply. 8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant in Cri.Appln.No. 1325/2010 submitted that five deers were taken to Navegaon National Park, Gondia on 13.8.2010; that utmost care of their health was taken as health certificate was obtained from Veterinary College. The animals were carried by a truck to Navegoan National Park ; but National Park Authorities refused to admit the animals, which were supposed to be freed inside the National Park. Under these circumstances the truck by which the animals were carried had to come back on the morning of 14.8.2010 and, on the following day i.e. 15.8.2010 there was holiday due to Independence Day and Veterinary Hospital remained closed. Under these circumstances since the animals had died their 4 natural death, no post-mortem examination over their dead bodies could be performed and, therefore, decision to bury them without post-mortem examination was provisionally taken as they can be exhumed for the purpose of post-mortem examination again, and therefore, one deer and one emu bird were buried. Learned Advocate for the applicant also expressed difficulties in the way of applicant Dr. Motghare that staff was not available due to holiday. It is further contended that there is no adverse report as such from the post-mortem examination of dead animals. 9. The contentions have been opposed on behalf of the respondent-State on the ground that the Medical Officer of the Zoo have to carry out post-mortem examination and should have done the formalities properly and it is his responsibility to see that deers ought to have been safely transported by taking appropriate measures for transporting and performing formalities. According to Investigating agency, statements of some of the employees in the zoo are yet to be recorded but since the applicants are influential persons, if they are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may pressurize the employees and it would create difficulty in the way of Investigating Officer to record statement of the employees in the zoo. It is also contended that earlier the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Nagpur had rejected the the prayer for anticipatory bail. Further it is submitted that applicants had not disclosed 5 true and correct facts to the court and that Doctor is trying to shift the blame on the Dean and vice versa. 10. It is not disputed that the offences which are punishable up to 3 years are triable in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the controversy in respect of applicability of penal provisions as also need for investigation, if any, must be left to be judged by the regular Court i.e. JMFC (Court No.2) Nagpur. In order to enable the applicants to move the regular Court presided over by JMFC Court No.2 Nagpur, I am inclined to extend the interim anticipatory bail for limited period expiring with time-line 21 st September, 2010 . Plea for bail may be moved on merits, after surrendering themselves on or before the said date, since in my opinion, regular court cannot be by-passed. Considering the number of penal provisions as also complicated questions of law and facts, the applicants are given sufficient time to approach the regular Court to surrender themselves and to apply for bail on merits. It is made clear that there shall be no further extension of period for appearance of the applicants before the regular Court. However, extension, if any, shall be prayed before the regular court, if the applications for bail are not decided by 21.9.2010. JUDGE Sahare