[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2845 OF 2008 Shri.Dharmarao Baba Atram ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Shirish Gupte Senior Counsel i/b Shri.S.U.Dhakephalkar Advocate for Applicant Mr.S.R.Borulkar, PP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 22, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 22, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 22, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned PP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.1 of 2008 of Wanpal Jejuri. The said case is under Section 26(1) of the Indian Forest Act 1927 and under Sections 9, 18, 39, 40, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant made preparation to go hunting. Thereafter the applicant shot two Chinkaras and killed them. The [-2-] skin of the Chinkaras came to be removed. The head and feet came to be separated. Two witnesses i.e. Avinash and Shyam have clearly stated about preparation made to go hunting, weapons which were taken and that thereafter, the applicant shot two Chinkaras. 4. Avinash was the body guard of the applicant. He has stated that on 14.6.2008 the applicant left in his official car to go on tour. The applicant was to go from Mumbai to Mahabaleshwar on official tour. While leaving for the tour, a firearm was kept in the official car of the applicant, wherein the applicant was sitting. Thereafter, the applicant and others went to the house of Ravi Sorap. Three plastic bags were brought down from the building of Ravi Sorap and they were kept in the official car. In one of the bags, there was search light, big knife, sattur and similar weapons. At about 8.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. when they reached Nira, search light and firearm were taken out from the dickey of the official car and the car turned and went on a Kaccha road. A person sitting in the car put on a search light and directed the search light to left and right side of [-3-] the vehicle. After sometime, one rabbit was seen in the search light. The applicant fired at the rabbit. The said rabbit died on the spot. Thereafter, another rabbit was shot by the applicant. After sometime in the search light, a Chinkara was seen. The applicant fired at the said Chinkara. The Chinkara fell down on the spot. Thereafter, another Chinkara was seen and the applicant fired at the said Chinkara. The said Chinkara walked a short distance and sat down. Instructions were given by co-accused Ravi Sorap to pick up the Chinkara. However, when they reached near the Chinkara, the Chinkara suddenly got up and started running away. At that time, the applicant got down from the vehicle and walked towards the Chinkara. In the search light, Chinkara was seen at a distance. At that time, the applicant fired at the Chinkara. Since the shot hit the Chinkara, the Chinkara collapsed. The applicant returned to the vehicle and gave instructions to pick up the Chinkara and bring it. Thereafter the skin of the Chinkara came to be removed and head and feet came to be separated. The statement of Shyam who was the driver of the applicant, is on similar lines as that of Avinash. [-4-] 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the statements of both these witnesses were recorded earlier and in the said statements both these witnesses have not implicated the applicant. It is seen that witness Shyam was the driver of the applicant and witness Avinash was the body guard of the applicant. Both these witnesses in their further statements have stated that tremendous pressure was brought on them to keep quiet about the incident. Looking to the fact that both the witnesses were working for the applicant, at the time when their first statement came to be recorded and the fact that they have stated that they were pressurised not to reveal the incident to any one, I am of the opinion that the further statements of these two witnesses wherein they have implicated the applicant, can be relied upon. 6. Besides the statements of these two witnesses, the statement of two co-accused have been recorded i.e. of co-accused Mahesh and Ankush. These persons have also implicated the applicant. As the statements have been recorded by the Forest Officer and not by the police, these statements can [-5-] certainly be relied upon by the prosecution. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the incident had occurred on 14.6.2008, today no purpose would be achieved by taking the applicant into custody. He submitted that all the property which had to be recovered has already been recovered, at the instance of the other accused persons. However, the learned PP submitted that the skin and three of the horns of the Chinkaras have not yet been recovered and the custody of the applicant would be necessary for the recovery of the same. 8. As far as grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, it would be pertinent to note Section 51-A(b) of the Wildlife Act. Section 51(A-b) provides that "where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application for bail, the Court can grant bail, if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail". Looking to the material on record, in my opinion, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the applicant. Moreover, material on [-6-] record is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the applicant. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Directorate of Enforcement Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 978 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, application is rejected. 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the applicant may be granted some time to surrender. In view of the prayer, I am inclined to grant time till 28.8.2008 to the applicant to surrender. The learned counsel for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant will surrender on 28.8.2008 before Mr.H.G.Dhumal, D.F.O. between 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. 10. Application disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]