Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1466 MP
Judgement Date : 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14365
1 MCRC-30165-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30165 of 2025
DEVI SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. V. S. Chauhan - Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Rohit Mishra - AAG for the State.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of B.N.S.S./439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to Crime No.795/2013 registered at Police Station Forest Department Ghatigaon, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 26, 52 of Indian Forest Act and under Section 09, 27, 50 and 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act of 1972').
2. As per prosecution story, about 35 kg of meat alongwith four legs,
head and chital have been recovered from the possession of the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the offence under Section 9 of the Act of 1972 is not made out against him, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rekhchand Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.R.No.253/1998). He further submits that the applicant is in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14365
2 MCRC-30165-2025 custody since 21.06.2025 and is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Conclusion of trial will take time. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations made against him are serious in nature. He further submitted that the applicant was found in possession of 35 kg of meat alongwith four legs, head and chital. He further submits that the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rekhchand (supra) would not be applicable inasmuch as the said judgment was rendered after the trial. He further submits that the investigation is in progress, therefore, at this stage, he cannot be released on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. This Court has considered the seriousness of the offences under the Act of 1972 in the case of Utkarsh Agarwal Vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C.No.30427/2024). Further the judgment rendered in the case of Rekhchand (supra) was a case where on merits this Court held that there was no evidence available on record to show that the applicant therein killed or hunted the animals. However, in the instant case, this stage has yet not arrived. Therefore, the applicant does not get any benefit from this judgment. The act alleged against the applicant under the Wildlife Protection Act is serious in nature. Since the investigation is in progress, therefore, at this stage, this Court does not find any ground to grant the bail to the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14365
3 MCRC-30165-2025
7. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. However, the applicant would be at liberty revive the prayer after filing of the charge- sheet.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE
bj/-
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!