'No Recovery At His Behest': Gujarat High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Alleged Supplier Of Prohibited Animals
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to an Applicant-accused, alleged to be supplier of prohibited animals.The Applicant was booked for alleged commission of offences under Sections 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f) and 11(1)(h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960 and Sections 6(a), 4, 3 and 8(2) of Gujarat Animals Preservation Act and Section 114 of IPC...
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to an Applicant-accused, alleged to be supplier of prohibited animals.
The Applicant was booked for alleged commission of offences under Sections 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f) and 11(1)(h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960 and Sections 6(a), 4, 3 and 8(2) of Gujarat Animals Preservation Act and Section 114 of IPC as well as Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act. The provisions pertain to animal cruelty, transportation of animals in a manner so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering.
The Applicant averred that he had been falsely implicated in the alleged offence and that custodial interrogation of the Applicant was not essential for the purpose of the investigation.
Per contra, the Prosecution submitted that the allegations against the Applicant were grave in nature and they required custodial interrogations.
Justice Ilesh Vora after perusing the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the Applicant was neither present at the place nor any recovery was made from his possession. The only role attributed to the Applicant was that he was a supplier of prohibited animals. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the Applicant had supplied the animals and there was nothing that showed that he would tamper with evidence or flee from justice. The contention of custodial interrogation was also rejected.
Considering these reasons, the Bench deemed it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant on a personal bond of INR 10,000 with the conditions that he must be available for interrogation whenever required and not play mischief with the evidence.
The Bench further clarified that it was open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate for police remand of the Applicant and that he will remain present before the Magistrate on the first date of hearing of application and on all subsequent occasions.
Case Title: Asrafkhan Dilavarkhan Lashari vs The State Of Gujarat
Case No.: R/CR.MA/15565/2021