Nagpur: District and sessions judge VM Vaidya on Tuesday rejected anticipatory bail of Riyaz Ahmed & Rizwan Ahmed, who along with others had allegedly shot dead a black buck in Nagardhan area of Ramtek on June 18.
Ahmeds, who are businessmen and residents of Mohammad Ali Road in Nagpur, and others are absconding since the incident and had filed an anticipatory bail application through their lawyer Salim Khan. They argued that when actor Salman Khan got bail in a similar shooting case in Rajasthan, why couldn’t they?
Black buck is listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. So, far as the Act is concerned, it makes no distinction between a black buck or a tiger when it comes to punishment for poaching.
Special counsel for the forest department, Kartik Shukul, briefed by Abhilash Shriwas had argued that the bail application is devoid of merits and suppresses facts. There was enough evidence that not only reflects direct involvement of the accused but also attempts were made to destroy proof.
Shukul submitted that investigations were at a nascent stage and hence, it would not be proper to grant bail to the accused, who pleaded innocence by claiming that the deer was found dead in a farm at Nagardhan on June 19. The applicants misled the court by stating that the animal that was shot was a deer and not a black buck.
However, the court was told that the animal was shot on the intervening night of June 18 and 19. The accused, referring to the poaching incident as one related to a deer, is an attempt to show that the crime is minor since deer is a Schedule-I animal.
“The aforesaid misrepresentation by the accused is itself a ground for bail rejection under Section 438,” Shukul told the court.
On getting information about shooting of the black buck, a probe was initiated and offence was registered under Sections 9, 39, 50 & 51 of the WPA. Investigations are still at an early stage and weapons used in the crime also need to be seized.
Forest sources said the accused are not cooperating with investigating officials and are constantly on the run. Several attempts were made to nab them but they are evading arrest. The forest department submitted that gravity of the offence is not to be gauged only by the quantum of punishment prescribed but also by impact and seriousness of the crime.
The act of poaching a Schedule-I animal is an extremely serious offence and the Bombay high court had earlier come down heavily on various lower courts that have dealt with such matters, referring only to the quantum of punishment.
The accused counsel cited ill-health of one of the applicants as grounds to secure bail, but Shukul argued that as per SC orders, simply raising grounds of ill-health would not entitle any person for bail.
Finally, the court rejected the bail application considering it as a serious crime.
Representational image
