Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Parsadi vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp on 20 May, 2011
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Cr Misc Bail Application No. 2662/2011 Parsadi Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 20.5.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Gurvinder Singh - for the petitioner Mr Sanjeev Mehla, PP for the State BY THE COURT:
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner did not kill the tiger. In fact, if any allegation exist in this regard it is against Kailash, who is admitted his guilt. Petitioner is said to have disclosed existence of three moustache hair of the dead tiger otherwise petitioner directly or indirectly is not involved in the killing of the tiger. Thus petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned PP, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application. He submits that petitioner is guilty of keeping three moustache hair of the tiger, which falls under the definition of 'TROPHY' as defined under section 2(31) of the Wild Life Protection Act. Case of the petitioner is falling therein. Looking to the aforesaid and the information given by the petitioner he is not entitled for the benefit of bail.
After taking into consideration the rival submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise affect the outcome of the trial, but looking to the facts of this case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, bail application is dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner may be given liberty to file fresh bail application if charge is framed against him.
Prayer aforesaid is granted. Petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh bail application if charge is framed against him.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharm