1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1308 /2010 (Shri Pulgam Chandram Arjanna and 2 others 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. M A Bapat, Adv.for applicants Mr. S.R.Deshpande, Spl.counsel for Respondent CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 23 rd August, 2010. Heard. 2. The applicants prayed for pre-arrest bail in respect of Crime (PRO) No. 516/11 registered at Range Forest Officer, Asarali, Tah. Sironcha Dist. Gadchiroli for offence punishable under various sections of the Wild Life Act, on the ground that they are innocent and peace- loving citizens. 3. It appears that earlier the applicants had moved the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli who, by order dated 10.8.2010 rejected the plea for anticipatory bail mainly on the ground that investigation papers made available before the Court revealed that accused are habitual in purchasing the skin of hunted wild animals and after alleged hunting of spotted deer by one Chinta Pochallu, the applicants were informed over phone to share the meat on payment of certain sum. The learned Sessions Judge refused to exercise the discretion under section 438 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that rare species of 2 herbivorous animals in the forests area of Gadchiroli District are fast disappearing on account of illegal hunting of wild animals. In the present case, it is alleged that a spotted deer was hunted and meat was shared by the applicants. Considering the accusations that the applicants are in the habit of buying meat from the illegal hunters, the Investigating Officer must get an opportunity to interrogate the applicants in custody. Therefore, I am not inclined to take a different view of the matter than that taken by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail. It is, of course, open for the applicants to apply for bail on merits from the regular Court. With these observations, Application stands rejected. JUDGE Sahare