TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Applicant Granted Pre-Arrest Bail with Conditions in Wildlife Protection Case.</h1> <h3>Faizan Khan Versus Assistant Chief Conservator of Forests (LRP and Wildlife), Thane, The State of Maharashtra</h3> Faizan Khan Versus Assistant Chief Conservator of Forests (LRP and Wildlife), Thane, The State of Maharashtra - TMI Issues:Application for pre-arrest bail in connection with Forest Offence Report for offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.Analysis:The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in relation to a Forest Offence Report for offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The indictment stated that a raid was conducted based on confidential information at a specific location, revealing the presence of various protected animals leading to the registration of the crime. The applicant, through his counsel, argued that he was not present during the raid, did not own or occupy the premises, and the animals seized did not belong to him. The counsel emphasized the applicant's innocence and willingness to cooperate with the investigation. On the other hand, the prosecutor contended that the offence was serious, highlighting the applicant's connection to the premises where the animals were found and expressing concerns about evidence tampering if the applicant was granted bail.Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented, the Court examined the allegations against the applicant, which involved the capture of protected animals, potentially violating the Act. It was noted that the applicant was not present during the raid and was neither the owner nor the licensee of the premises where the animals were found. The Court observed that the applicant's mere attestation of a document related to the premises did not imply his involvement in the crime. Additionally, it was found that the animals had been seized and relocated as required by law, addressing concerns about their well-being. The Court acknowledged the prosecution's fears of evidence tampering and witness influence but determined that imposing appropriate conditions could mitigate these risks.Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion in favor of the applicant and granted pre-arrest bail. The conditions for bail included the execution of a PR Bond, furnishing sureties, and a requirement for the applicant to cooperate with the investigating authority as needed. Furthermore, the applicant was prohibited from engaging in activities that could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The application for pre-arrest bail was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
