Gauhati High Court
Arup Baishya vs The State Of Assam on 26 November, 2021
Author: Ajit Borthakur
Bench: Ajit Borthakur
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010196532021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/3848/2021
ARUP BAISHYA
S/O HARMOHAN BAISHYA
R/O VILL- NAKTADAL SUWALKUCHI
P.O. AND P.S. SUWALKUCHI, KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHATTACHARJEE
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
26.11.2021 Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.
By this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Arup Page No.# 2/4 Baishya has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Offence No. NR/22 of 2021 dated 11.11.2021, under Sections 2/9/39/40/44/48/49 and punishable u/s 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act.
Call for a scanned copy of the case record fixing 16.12.2021.
The brief fact of the case is that on 11.11.2021, a complaint was lodged by the Range Forest Officer, Northern Range, Hajo alleging, inter-alia, that on 10.11.2021 after getting information from reliable source, the Range Forest Officer, Northern Range, Hajo along with range staff conducted a patrolling operation at Sanpara Parbat, Bongshar area and during search operation, at the first house of the present petitioner found a piece of bone which is suspected to be from the shell of a turtle along with a bag containing skins of deer, a bag full of porcupine spikes/thrones, facial bones, one DBBL gun, air rifle, animal trapping nets, two number of live Tockay Gecko Lizards, used and unused ammunitions of both DBBL gun and air rifle, some alcohol bottles and tools used for hunting. During another raid at the petitioner's second house, huge number of used and unused ammunitions of both DBBL gun and air rifle, bullet proof jacket, wireless phone battery, two number of arms licences, two fishing rods with fishing hooks, departmental flashlight, tranquilizer needles and other hunting tools were found. On searching in the petitioner's car one modern sword like tool and dagger were also found.
Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously emphasized, inter-alia, on the following points:
1. That the petitioner is a serving Forester-I and he is legally authorized to retain the seized materials;
Page No.# 3/4
2. That the complainant has old enmity for a dispute pertaining to 48 bighas of private land with the petitioner. The complainant has been trying to grab the petitioner's land by roping him into this false and motivated conspiratorial case;
3. That the complainant, who is a Forest Ranger, is not authorized under the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 to enquire/investigate any case under the said Act;
4. That the complainant, who is unauthorised Forest Range Officer under law, conducted raid at his two houses in absence of him and his family members in gross-violation of the specific provisions of Cr.P.C.;
5. That the petitioner is the licence holder of the seized guns and ammunitions; and
6. That as the petitioner has already been placed under suspension by the department, there is no chance of him hampering or tampering the enquiry/investigation, if the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail is granted to him so as to enable him to give his statement, subject to any condition(s) Mr. Bhattacharrya has relevantly emphasized on a number of full bench decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to the procedural requirements for conducting search and seizure.
Opposing the pre-arrest bail application, Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., Gauhati High Court prays to call for the case record.
On the facts and circumstances as stated above more particularly, the issue of legal authority of the complainant and the allegation of conspiracy and Page No.# 4/4 further, strictly subject to materials on the case record, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner named above, shall be released on interim pre- arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course, to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer and produce all his documents etc. whatever relevant to the case within 7 days, failing which, on the 8th day, this interim pre-arrest bail order shall automatically come to an end;
(ii) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) That the petitioner shall refrain from committing any offences similar to the one of which he is suspected of commission;
(iv) That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the complainant-cum-investigating officer without his prior permission till the above date fixed; and
(v) That the instant interim pre-arrest bail shall not be extended for any reason.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant