Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a third bail application filed by the accused regarding the alleged hunting of a spotted deer, the Single Judge Bench of Milind Ramesh Phadke, J., rejected the application, holding that no ground for grant of bail was made out since the earlier bail applications had already been dismissed on merits, and no substantial change in circumstances had been demonstrated.
Background
Upon receiving information of illegal hunting in Son Chidiya Sanctuary, Ghatigaon, the forest staff conducted a search operation. The accused was apprehended while fleeing on a motorcycle, and upon search, the head and four legs of a spotted deer (chital) were recovered, along with burlap bags tied on his motorcycle. Accordingly, an FIR was filed against him under Sections 26 and 52 of the Forest Act, 1927, and Sections 9, 27, 50, and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and he was arrested.
Aggrieved, he filed bail applications twice, which were rejected on merit; hence, he filed the present petition.
The present application was filed on the new ground that the prosecution witness 1 (“PW”), a material witness on whose testimony the entire prosecution’s story of recovery and spot proceedings was based, stated that no expert report was ever placed before him which could establish that the meat allegedly seized by him was that of a chital or a deer. He further stated that it cannot be determined which particular wild species the meat belongs to without a DNA analysis.
PW 1 also accepted that he did not see the accused hunting, nor had any other person stated before him that the accused was seen hunting. He further admitted that the documents prepared regarding the spot inspection were written in the range office, and no biological examination of the seized material was conducted.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that the alleged contradictions in the testimony of PW 1 were insufficient to constitute a material change in the circumstances to warrant reconsideration of the accused’s bail at this stage.
“The evidence of a single witness, even assuming it contains certain admissions, cannot be seen in isolation.”
The Court noted that the prosecution’s case was not founded solely upon PW 1’s testimony; it was also supported by contemporaneous documents, seizure proceedings, and other material collected during the investigation. Additionally, the evidentiary value of PW 1’s deposition, including any inconsistencies, would be considered by the Trial Court during the final adjudication and could not be a decisive factor in granting bail at the interlocutory stage.
The Court remarked that “the offences alleged relate to illegal hunting of a protected wildlife species, which had serious implications for wildlife preservation and ecological balance. Such offences affect public interest at large and must be dealt with sternly.”
The Court further stated that the accused’s personal circumstances, though noted, could not outweigh the nature and gravity of the allegations. Moreover, several prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined, and the possibility of the applicant influencing or pressurising witnesses could not be ruled out if he was released on bail.
Considering that the earlier bail applications had already been dismissed on merits, and no substantial change in circumstances had been demonstrated, the Court held that no ground for the grant of bail was made out.
Accordingly, the present application was also dismissed.
[Devisingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Misc. Criminal Case No. 50970 of 2025, decided on 14-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Dhara Singh Meena
For the respondent: Public Prosecutor Dinesh Savita