Safiya Malik

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, has rejected an application for bail filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application pertained to alleged offences under various provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The case involved the death of a leopard due to electrocution and the alleged use of a trap by the applicant.

The case, registered as P.O.R. No. 135 of 2015 at Forest Circle Uchehra, Beat Parsoniya, District Satna, involved charges under Sections 9, 2(16), 39, 50, 51, 52, and 58(7) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The applicant was accused of involvement in setting up an electric trap that led to the death of a leopard, a Schedule I animal under the Act.

The applicant’s counsel, Mr. Mohit Chouriya, argued that the applicant was falsely implicated. He submitted that the evidence against the applicant was weak and largely circumstantial. It was claimed that a forest squad’s dog barked at the applicant’s house during the search, leading to his arrest. The counsel further stated that the presence of burnt porcupine quills near the applicant’s house was not sufficient to establish his involvement in the death of the leopard. The applicant, a member of a tribal community, was alleged to have been wrongfully targeted due to his residence in a forested area.

The prosecution, represented by Panel Lawyer Ms. Kshipra Gupta, contended that the evidence gathered during the investigation demonstrated the applicant’s culpability. It was submitted that the remains of a leopard and porcupine quills were recovered near the applicant’s house. A post-mortem report indicated that the leopard had died due to electrocution. The prosecution argued that the applicant had constructed a trap using G.I. cable and small wooden stakes, connected to an electric line, resulting in the leopard’s death.

The court considered the submissions made by both parties, as well as the evidence presented. The post-mortem report was reviewed, which recorded that the leopard had died from electrocution. The court noted the presence of burnt porcupine quills and the remains of the leopard near the applicant’s house. It also referred to the spot map indicating the setup of an electric line near the location.

The court recorded:“In the post-mortem report, it has been clearly mentioned that the leopard died due to electric current. Remains of quills of porcupine were found in the place of incident i.e. in the house of applicant. From the spot map, it is found that electric line has been passed and as per the prosecution case, the applicant after fixing the small woods in a pattern, G.I. Cable was rolled in them and electric current was supplied and when the leopard came in the contact of that trap, leopard died.”

The court further observed that the applicant was accused of hunting a leopard, which is a protected species under Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Referring to the severity of the allegations and the evidence, the court stated: “Thus, looking to the facts and severity of the offence the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.”

The court denied the bail application, ruling that the applicant’s alleged actions constituted a grievous offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The order stated: “Hence, the bail application filed by the applicant stands dismissed.”

Case Title: Munim Singh Gond vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 55260 of 2024
Bench: Justice Devnarayan Mishra

 [Read/Download order]