Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Hunting Wild Animals And Keeping Their Body Parts

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man accused of hunting wild animals and keeping their body parts.

The Court was considering an Application seeking grant of anticipatory bail for the offence punishable under Sections 2(31), 9, 49, 50 and 52 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed, ".....Considering the overall facts and cirrcumstances of the case, as well as the fact that the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail....."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Satendra Kumar Shrivastava while the Respondent was represented by Public Prosecutor Samar Ghuraiya.

Facts of the Case

As per the prosecution, members of the Kanjar community of the said village illegally hunted wild animals — a peacock and a hare — and kept their body parts in possession without any valid documents. On the basis of this incident, a First Information Report alleged crime was registered against the accused.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no direct or cogent evidence connecting him with the alleged offence of illegal hunting or possession of wildlife articles. It was submitted that the prosecution’s case has been founded merely on suspicion and presumption, without any substantial proof to establish the Applicant’s involvement.

It was further submitted that the alleged recovery shown by the prosecution was made from an open and accessible place, which was not in the exclusive possession of the Applicant. Therefore, the alleged seizure cannot be attributed specifically to him. The place from where the recovery was made could be accessed by anyone, which completely discredits the prosecution’s version and makes the alleged recovery unreliable in law.

It was further submitted that no independent witnesses were associated with the alleged recovery proceedings, which were carried out only in the presence of forest officials. The absence of independent witnesses casts serious doubt on the fairness and transparency of the proceedings.

The Counsel averred that the prosecution has not produced any forensic or expert evidence to establish that the seized articles were indeed parts of wild animals as alleged and in the absence of such verification, the prosecution story remains uncorroborated.

Reasoning By Court

The Court was inclined to grant the bail considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

"....... It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to compliance of the following conditions....", the Court observed.

The Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Virju v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025:MPHC-GWL:27914)

Click here to read/ download Order