IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24928 of 2008 MD. SHAHABUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 05.01.2009 Heard Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Dayal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The case relates to finding of some hides of some scheduled animals as per the schedule of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 on search by the forest officials of the resident of the petitioner and some other part, which could be described as the guest house lying in the same premises. One hide of Royal Bengal Tiger, two hides of above nature of Deer and one reconstructed into a Chital were found. Besides, a living female Deer was also found at the site of the recoveries. Initially the prosecution was launched under different sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, but it is contended that the learned trial Magistrate has now framed the charges only under Sections 51 and 51 (A) of the above noted Act. It is contended that initially the offences were punishable with some stringent punishment, but - 2 - subsequently the same have been reduced to a period of two years. The next contention is that the recoveries were made in absence of the petitioner when he had an order promulgated against him not to reside inside the jurisdiction of Siwan district. The contention further is that the petitioner is in custody since 20.6.2006. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing in the present petition has resisted the prayer for bail on many counts. It was contended that offences are serious, inasmuch as, they indicate the character of the petitioner, so as to destroying the national assets of forestry and further that the petitioner might be indulging in trade of the hides or any components of different animals. It was further contended that during the search of the house of the petitioner a huge number of photographs were found in which the petitioner was seen with the killed animals. Besides, it was contended that finding of a living deer in the house of the petitioner indicated that the petitioner was dealing also in the prohibited animals. The last contention was that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to different terms of punishment in different terms of offences in some - 3 - courts of Siwan and his appeals against those convictions are pending in this court and this court has refused the release of the petitioner on account of his conviction. It was contended that the granting of bail was prohibited as per the Provision of Section 437(2) of the Cr. P.C. The facts as indicated above and as may appear from the contentions of the parties are there existing on the record that the petitioner’s house was found with a living prohibited animal as also with some hides of killed animals. They are really prohibited animals and might be that the petitioner could have indicated in prying upon them. But, this could be simply an allegation, inasmuch as, there could not be any material produced before this court as to how the petitioner was dealing in the killed animals or any part of the animals. The fact remains as may appear from the provisions of the above noted act that the offence has been made compoundable. It is true that it is cognizable. But the offences appears punishable from three years up to seven years in the maximum and that too in specified class of offences as per Chapter V of the above noted Act. Convictions are there as contended, but in the above fact - 4 - that the offences also made compoundable by the special provisions of the Act, let petitioner Md. Shahabuddin be released from custody on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri V. V. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, Special Court, Siwan in Trial No. 2138 of 2008 arising out of case No. C – II 54 of 2005. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)