NAEEM MOHMED SAYEB HALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications are by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR registered at C.R. Nos.F.O.R. (complaint) No.04/2020-21 and 07/2020-21 Veraval Range Forest Officer for the offence under Sections 2(16) , 2(17) , 2(20) , 2(31) , 2(36) , 2(37) , 9 , 39 , 50 , 51 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has mainly contended that the custodial interrogation of the applicant will not be necessary as the FORs itself record that the Investigating Agency is already having video recording of the offence which is an electronic evidence and therefore, since the evidence is already in the custody of Investigating Agency, the custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary, still the applicant is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation in any manner as his liberty would be curtained if the anticipatory bail is not granted to him. It is submitted that maximum sentence for the offence for which FORs are registered is seven years and hence also the case of the applicant deserves consideration in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arneshkumar v/s. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SC 273.

(3.) Learned APP opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to submit that the applicant is habitual in involving in this type of offence and that such act on the part of the applicant is directly affecting the environment and the habitats of the lions.