Uttarakhand High Court
Virendra Semwal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No. 1 of 2022)
In
Criminal Revision No. 432 of 2022
Virendra Semwal ........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Opposite Party
Present:-
Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate with Mr. Bhupendra
Koranga, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General with Ms.
Meena Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this revision is made to the
followings:
(i) Judgment and order dated
03.04.2021 passed in Criminal Case
No. 135 of 2015, State v. Kuldeep
Rawat and others, by the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri
Garhwal ("the case"). By it the
revisionist has been convicted and
sentenced under Section 51 read
with Section 52 Wild Life Protection
Act, 1972 ("the Act") read with
Section 34 IPC.
(ii) Judgment and order dated
16.07.2022 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 13 of 2021, by the court
of Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tehri Garhwal ("the appeal").
By it, the appeal of the revisionist
has been partly allowed and he has
been acquitted of the charge under
Section 34 IPC, but has been
convicted and sentenced under
Section 51 of the Act.
2. It is argued that it is a case of alleged recovery
of bones of Leopard, but the person, who examined the
bones has not been examined before the court and he was
not an "expert" as defined under Section 293 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"). It is argued
that, in fact, bones' examination report was given by the
Wildlife Institute of India. The matter pertains to 2015,
whereas on that date, the experts of the Wildlife Institute
of India were not notified under Section 293 of the Code.
They were so notified in the year 2017. Reference has
been made to the judgment in Criminal Jail Revision No.
01 of 2018, Pappu Prasad v. State of Uttarakhand and
another, decided by this Court on 14.07.2022.
3. Having considered, this Court is of the view
that this matter definitely requires deliberations.
4. Admit the revision.
5. Summon the lower court record.
6. List for final hearing on 15.09.2022.
Bail application (IA No. 1 of 2022).
7. Heard on the bail application.
8. The applicant Virendra Semwal is convicted
and sentenced under Section 51 of the Act. It is the case
that bones of Leopard were recovered from him.
9. What is being argued is that there is no
scientific evidence to establish that the bones belong to
the Leopard, which is included in any of the Schedule of
the Act. The "expert" from the Wildlife Institute of India
was not an expert notified under Section 293 of the Code
in the year 2015, when the alleged recovery was made.
The experts of the Wildlife Institute of India were notified
in the year 2017. Reference has been made to the
judgment passed in Criminal Jail Revision No. 01 of 2018,
Pappu Prasad v. State of Uttarakhand and another,
decided by this Court on 14.07.2022.
10. In that judgment, this Court has referred to the
notification with regard to the expert of the Wildlife
Institute of India under Section 293 of the Code, which
was made on 20.07.2017. In that case, the Court had
held that, in fact, the notification issued on 20.07.2017
may not relate back. It makes out a case for bail.
11. The bail application is allowed.
12. Let the revisionist Virendra Semwal be released
on bail during pendency of the revision, on his executing
a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each
of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
04.08.2022
Avneet/
