AB 172/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mrr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Munir, learned Addl. PP, Assam. Mr. Munir submits that no information has been received by him in view of the or der dated 1.12.10. The petitioner, being apprehensive of arrest in connection with the case registe red on the basis of the offence report (OR) No. ER/04/2010 U/S 9/31/39/44/49(B)/ 50/51 of Wildlife Protection Act 1972, has approached this court by filing this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for releasing him on pre-arrest b ail. From the seizure report it appears that the various parts of rhino have been seized from the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was absent at th e time of seizure and the articles have been seized from the wife of the petiti oner which include rhino skins, bone and live bullet of .303 rifle. Considering the nature of seized materials, allegations against the petitioner and the subj ect of rare species on which these offence have been committed as well as ta king note of the concern of the people from all over the world for protection of such kind of rare species of rhino, I do not consider it to be a fit case to gr ant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application stands rejected.