The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the bail application of a man accused of illegal hunting within the Son Chidiya Sanctuary in Ghatigaon, emphasizing that the offence of hunting a protected wildlife species carries grave implications for ecological balance and must be treated with sternness. The bench, led by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, underscored that poaching undermines wildlife preservation and public interest at large.
According to the prosecution case, forest officials acted on intelligence about illicit hunting in the sanctuary and conducted a search operation. During the raid, the accused was allegedly seen fleeing on a motorcycle, and forest staff recovered from his vehicle the head and four legs of a spotted deer, along with four burlap bags containing parts tied to the vehicle. These discoveries prompted the filing of an FIR under several statutes: Section 26 and Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and multiple provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 — including Section 9 (prohibition on hunting), Section 27 (restriction on entry into a sanctuary), Section 50 (power of entry, search, arrest, and detention), and Section 51 (penalties).
This was not the first time the accused had sought bail; it was his third application. In his plea, he argued that a key prosecution witness had given contradictory testimony, pointing out that no expert report had confirmed if the seized meat was from a deer species. The witness admitted, in cross examination, that species identification from meat alone was unreliable and ideally needed DNA testing.
However, the court was not persuaded by these submissions. It pointed out that the prosecution’s case rested not only on individual witness testimony but was reinforced by contemporaneous documents, seizure proceedings, and other material evidence collected during investigation. The court remarked that evaluating the strength of a witness’s testimony would be the job of the trial court at the time of final adjudication.
Justice Phadke held that the contradictions in the witness’s deposition did not amount to a “material change” in facts that could justify bail. He observed that the offence goes beyond an individual act and affects public interest, given its ecological dimension. The court stressed that wildlife offences involving protected species cannot simply be viewed through the lens of individual liberty, as they raise broader concerns about conservation and the environment.
Given the seriousness and ecological impact of the crime, the court refused to grant bail. The bench’s decision reaffirms that the judiciary will treat illegal hunting, especially of safeguarded species, as a matter of significant public and environmental concern rather than a mere private offence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.