Nagpur: Chief judicial magistrate (CJM) DP Ragit has denied bail to three dreaded tiger poachers who wanted be free birds by using Section 436-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Section 436-A is normally initiated by an application for bail by the accused when they have undergone half of the punishment term. In this particular case, the initiative was taken by CJM suomotu on February 3.
Normally, when 436-A is initiated, courts grant bail to the accused since the substantial part of the punishment has been served in jail by them. This is one of the few cases where bail has not been granted and perhaps the first such case under Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972.
Denying benefit of 436-A to accused MamruPatlepawar, Chika Patlepawar, and Shiri Chavan, the CJM on Wednesday upheld the argument by the forest department's special counsel KartikShukul. The latter argued that these Pardhi poachers belonging to Bahelia community have no permanent addresses and they will evade trial like poachers Barsul and Yarlen, who were released on bail last year in similar poaching cases and now have turned absconders.
All the three accused were arrested in June 2013 and have been under detention for over 3.5 years, half of the maximum period of 7-year punishment provided under Section 51 of the WPA. Hence, the court wanted to release the accused.
However, forest department opposed the move by submitting that the accused wasted court's two years by contending that they were juveniles. They delayed their application under S.7A of the juvenile justice act for over two years. They mislead the court by not furnishing their actual place of residence and also presented fake papers about their age claiming to be juvenile. Hence, their application was rejected on merit by the court.
Shukul further argued that if these accused are released on bail, there is no possibility of securing their presence at the time of trial.
Looking into the serious nature of crime by the accused, which involves hunting and trafficking of tiger skins and body parts to traders from North India, the CJM ruled that the accused are not qualified to get benefit of bail under Section 436-A.
The CJM also agreed that the two-year period wasted by the accused in legal battle over being juveniles should be deducted from the detention period of the accused.
