Hunting Wild Animal In A Planned Manner Poses Threat To Nature & Forests: MP High Court Denies Bail To Men Booked For Poaching Tigress

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a bail application filed by men accused of hunting a female tiger by installing electric wires, an act which the Court underscored as a serious threat to nature and forests.

They were charged under Sections 2(16), (36) r/w Sections 9, 39, 44, 48(A), 49(B), 51, 52 and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (Amendment) 2022 by State Tiger Strike Force, Jabalpur.

In his ruling, Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal emphasized that the hunting of a Schedule-I wild animal, such as a tiger, cannot be treated as a trivial offence. The Court observed that the offence poses a significant threat to both nature and the environment, thereby justifying the continued detention of the accused.

“The hunting of wild animal like tiger in a planned manner cannot be treated as a normal offence as same poses threat to nature and forests. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail”

The applicants, who have been in custody since August 2023, were apprehended by the State Tiger Strike Force after 49 bones, 14 nails, and 31 moustache hairs of a tiger were seized from their possession, as confirmed by a DNA examination. On the basis of the disclosure memo by him, the carcass of the deceased tiger was seized. Nine pieces of GI pipe wires were also seized.

The counsel for the applicant had submitted that the applicants had not committed any offence, were innocent and had been falsely implicated.

It had been stated that nothing was seized from their possession, and the seizure was not made before any independent witness. It was also contended by the counsel for the applicants that all witnesses were from the Forest Department and they were members of the State Tiger Strike Force.

Hence, it was stated that in the absence of independent witnesses, the story of the complainants could not be believed and therefore, the applicants may be released on bail

Despite the dismissal of their bail plea, the Court acknowledged the prolonged detention of the applicants and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, with a mandate to conclude it within six months.

Click Here To Read/Download Order