1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA)No.291/2011 Gurubacchansing s/o Premsingh Bhad Vs. The State of Maharashtra. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 16/9/2011. 1] This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, who apprehends his arrest in POR No. 172/16 registered by Forest Division, Khapa for offence punishable under Sections 2(16), A, B, C, 35, 9, 39, 44, read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (said Act). 2] The applicant has stated that the Forest Officer has seized the wild animal (Nilgai) weighing 27 kgs. from the house of Pundalik Kumbhare and during custodial interrogation, the said accused Shri Pundlik U. Kumbhare disclosed the name of the present applicant and of one Janrao Baliram Ukey. The applicant has stated that nothing remains to be recovered from the present applicant and hence, no custodial interrogation would be required. The applicant has stated that he is doing private work in Katol city and is married person 2 having no criminal antecedents. 3] By way of reply, the respondent has resisted the application. It is alleged that the Forest Guard had gone to the house of Pundlik Kumbhare and had seized meat and flesh of wild animal (Nilgai) weighing 27 kg. and said Pundlik Kumbhare and Baliram Ukey have been arrested on 28/7/2001 and 29/7/2011. It is further stated that by seeing the forest guard, the present applicant ran away from the spot along with vehicle but the forest guard had taken photograph of the accused on his mobile. It is also stated that during interrogation, other accused persons have disclosed the name of the present applicant. According to the respondent, the spot where the animal was killed is required to be ascertained; the weapon by which the animal was killed is required to be seized, for which interrogation of the applicant is necessary. It is stated that the Assistant Wild Life Warden-cum- Assistant Conservator of Forest (Tendu) Nagpur Division has served notice on the uncle of the applicant and Forester had gone to the house of the applicant for serving summons of attendance but the applicant is absconding and summons for attendance has been served on his uncle. 4] Heard learned Advocate Shri A.A. Sonak for the applicant and learned Special Counsel Shri M.P. Badar on behalf of the respondent. 3 5] Perused the material on record. 6] There is no dispute about the fact that Nilgai is wild animal, as per the definition under Section 2(36) of the said Act. 27 kgs. of meat of Nilgai has been seized and other co-accused Pundlik Kumbhare and Baliram Ukey were arrested and thereafter, their custodial interrogation was done. The learned Special Counsel of the Forests Department Shri M.P. Badar has shown to the Court the photograph of the present applicant taken out by the Forest Guard on his mobile. The Forest Guard had seen the applicant running away from the spot along with vehicle. The co-accused have also disclosed the name of the present applicant. The exact spot from where the said Nilgai was killed is yet to be ascertained and the weapon by which the Nilgai was killed is to be seized. There is, prima facie, evidence against the applicant and his presence for custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant. 7] In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar.