CRLR/729/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 3058 UK

                      Office Notes,
                   reports, orders or
SL.                 proceedings or
         Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                   directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      10.10.2023                        CRLR No.729 of 2023
                                        Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Proposed Criminal Revision has been filed by the Revisionists-accused persons against the judgment dated 13.09.2023, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2017, by which the Appeal, filed against the judgment dated 01.08.2017, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.6183 of 2012, by which, the revisionists were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-each (Rupees Ten Thousand) for the offence punishable under Section 51 (1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, has been dismissed.

2. As per the prosecution's case, on 01.07.2012, the revisionists-accused persons were going on a motorcycle. Revisionist no.1-Sudama was driving the motorcycle. Revisionist no.2-Gopal was the pillion rider. A ten finger long ivory was recovered from the personal search of the revisionist no.1-Sudama.

3. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate submits that the alleged ivory was not recovered from the possession of the revisionists. Alleged recovered ivory was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain that the same was ivory or not. Therefore, it has not been proved that the alleged recovered article was ivory.

5. Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. has fairly conceded that the alleged recovered ivory was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

6. Admit.

7. List on 02.01.2024.

8. Heard on Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2023).

9. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate submits that the revisionists were on bail during the trial, and, the conditions of bail were neither violated nor misused by them.

10. Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. opposed the bail application. However, she has fairly conceded that the revisionists were on bail during the trial, and the conditions of bail were neither violated nor misused by them.

11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the revisionists deserve bail at this stage.

12. The Bail Application (IA No.01 of 2023) is allowed.

13. Let the revisionists, namely, Sudama and Gopal, be released on bail on executing their personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 10.10.2023 JKJ/Pant